The Delhi High Court made a significant ruling regarding design piracy in the case of Havells India Limited v Polycab India Limited.
Havells India Limited (Havells) filed a suit seeking a permanent injunction against Polycab India Limited (Polycab) for infringing their three registered fan designs, namely ENTICER (2016), BIANCA ART (2021) and BIANCA ART-SANGANER (2022). The allegedly infringing fan designs of Polycab were ELANZA and ELGANZ PLUS.
Havells argued that ELANZA closely matched the design of Havell’s ENTICER, while ELEGANZ PLUS infringed upon the BIANCA ART and BIANCA ART-SANGANER designs. In June 2023, the Court had granted an interim injunction in favor of Havells restraining Polycab from using all three allegedly infringed registered designs. Polycab had moved an application to vacate the injunction order.
Upon examining each design, the Court observed that Polycab’s ELANZA was strikingly similar to Havells’ 2016 design ENTICER, noting “hardly any difference” between them. The Court also agreed with Havells’ contention that Polycab consciously imitated the ENTICER design and used the same expressions to name the color of their fans as those of Havells. The Court accordingly maintained the interim injunction previously granted.
Regarding Havells’ 2022 suit design BIANCA ARTSANGANER, the Court concluded that the novelty and originality of this suit design was certified as residing only in the surface pattern. The Court held that the surface patterns of Polycab’s ELEGANZ PLUS range were sufficiently different from the 2022 suit design. Hence, it did not infringe the 2022 suit design. The Court agreed with Polycab’s argument that Havells could not have clubbed the 2021 and 2022 suit designs to argue infringement against ELEGANZ PLUS as both design registrations were for different design features.
The Court accordingly dismissed Havells’ plea concerning the 2021 BIANCA design given the insufficient specific evidence and held that no piracy case was established.
Referring to the Calcutta High Court order in Castrol India Ltd v Tide Water Oil Co. (I) Ltd, the Court held that “the copy must be a fraudulent or obvious imitation”. The Court further held that under Section 22(1)(a) of the Designs Act, 2000, piracy matters ought to be analyzed from the visual aspect of a design. Further, the Court highlighted that, while opposing an injunction, the defendant in this case, Polycab, ought to raise a credible challenge to the validity of the plaintiff ’s designs.
In conclusion, the Court upheld the interim order against Polycab’s ELANZA series for design infringement. However, it lifted the injunction against ELEGANZ PLUS series. This decision highlights the crucial role of the overall visual impression in determining design piracy, actual end product design and submitting substantial evidence during infringement proceedings.
