Delhi High Court Bars Use of “CAWELS” Mark Over “HAVELLS” Similarity

Delhi High Court Bars Use of “CAWELS” Mark Over “HAVELLS” Similarity

Introduction

The Delhi High Court has granted interim injunctive relief in favour of Havells India Limited, restraining Cawels Electric Private Limited from using the marks “CAWELS” and “CAWELS ELECTRIC.” The Court held that the impugned marks are deceptively similar to Havells’ well-known trademark “HAVELLS” and are likely to cause consumer confusion in relation to electrical goods.

Factual Background

Havells India Limited is a long-established manufacturer and seller of electrical goods, including fans, cables, lighting products and home appliances. It has been in business since 1942 and holds multiple trademark registrations for the mark “HAVELLS” across various classes, with the earliest registration dating back to 1955. The mark “HAVELLS” was declared a well-known trademark by the Delhi High Court in 2014.

In September 2025, Havells discovered that Cawels Electric Private Limited, a Delhi-based manufacturer, was marketing electrical products under the brand names “CAWELS” and “CAWELS ELECTRIC” through its website and other channels.

Procedural Background

Havells instituted a trademark infringement and passing-off suit before the Delhi High Court, along with an application seeking interim injunction to restrain Cawels Electric from using the impugned marks. The matter came up before a single-judge Bench of Justice Tejas Karia, which examined the request for interim relief.

Issues

1. Whether the marks “CAWELS” and “CAWELS ELECTRIC” are deceptively similar to the registered and well-known trademark “HAVELLS.”

2. Whether such use amounted to trademark infringement and passing off.

3. Whether Havells was entitled to interim injunctive relief based on prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable harm.

Contentions of the Parties

Havells contended that the impugned marks were deliberately designed by making minor spelling changes to “HAVELLS” in order to create phonetic and visual similarity. It argued that the shared “-ELLS/-ELS” ending, coupled with use for identical electrical goods, was likely to mislead consumers into believing an association with Havells.

Cawels Electric opposed the grant of interim relief, claiming that “CAWELS” was independently coined from the initials of its promoter, CA Shashi Kant, combined with the words “wells” or “wellness.” It further argued that consumers of electrical products are careful purchasers and unlikely to be confused.

Reasoning and Analysis

The Court rejected the defendant’s explanation for adopting the mark “CAWELS,” noting that documentary records showed the mark had been adopted even before the promoter relied upon the explanation. The Court found this justification to be an afterthought.

Justice Tejas Karia held that the marks “HAVELLS” and “CAWELS” are visually, phonetically and structurally similar. The minor spelling changes were insufficient to dispel confusion, particularly when the marks were being used for identical or closely related electrical products.

Emphasising the well-known status of the “HAVELLS” mark, the Court observed that such trademarks are entitled to a higher degree of protection. It held that use of a deceptively similar mark, even as part of a corporate name or domain name, could mislead consumers into assuming a trade connection.

On balance of convenience, the Court noted that Havells enjoys a long-standing market presence, whereas Cawels Electric was a relatively new entrant. Continued use of the impugned marks would cause irreparable harm to Havells’ goodwill and reputation.

The Court also highlighted that electrical products involve considerations of safety, reliability and statutory compliance. Any confusion arising from deceptively similar branding could erode consumer trust and adversely affect Havells’ commercial interests.

Decision

The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction restraining Cawels Electric Private Limited from using the marks “CAWELS,” “CAWELS ELECTRIC,” or any other deceptively similar mark, whether as a brand name, corporate name or domain name, in relation to electrical products. The restraint will operate during the pendency of the suit.

In this case the plaintiff was represented by Mr. Saikrishna Rajagopal, Ms. Julien George, Ms. Anu Paarcha, Mr. Avijit Kumar and Mr. Christo Sabu, Advocates. Meanwhile the defendant was represented by Mr. Rajiv Ranjan Dwivedi and Ms. Shivani Kandoi, Advocates.