--- title: "Delhi High Court Holds Typographical Stylisation Cannot Shield Deceptive Similarity in Trademark Dispute" date: 2026-08-10 author: "King Stubb & Kasiva" url: https://ksandk.com/newsletter/deceptive-similarity-trademark/ --- # Delhi High Court Holds Typographical Stylisation Cannot Shield Deceptive Similarity in Trademark Dispute Posted On - 10 August, 2026 • By - King Stubb & Kasiva In *Havells India Limited & Anr. v. Havai Home Products Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.*, the Delhi High Court granted an ad interim injunction restraining the Defendants from using the marks HAVAI and its stylised device variants in relation to electrical goods. The decision addresses how **typographical stylisation and font selection** can materially contribute to deceptive similarity and consumer confusion. ## Summary In *Havells India Limited & Anr. v. Havai Home Products Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.*, CS(COMM) 778/2024, the Delhi High Court granted an **ad interim injunction** restraining the Defendants from using the marks HAVAI and its stylised device variants in relation to electrical goods. The Court held that a trader cannot avoid liability for passing off merely by relying upon a registered word mark where the mark actually used in the marketplace is deceptively similar to an earlier mark and the overall commercial impression is likely to cause confusion. Significantly, the Court examined the Defendants’ use of a **sans-serif font**, in which the terminal letter “I” was capable of being perceived as the letter “L”. This caused the mark to be read and pronounced as “Ha-va-L”, creating phonetic deceptive similarity with the Plaintiffs’ HAVELLS mark. The Court found that the change in stylisation from the Defendants’ registered HAVAI mark was a mala fide attempt to come close to the HAVELLS marks. Reaffirming the independent nature of the **passing off remedy**, the Court held that registration is not a defence to a passing off action where the claimant establishes goodwill, misrepresentation and damage or likelihood of damage. The Court accordingly found a prima facie case of passing off and granted temporary injunctive relief in favour of the Plaintiffs. ## Facts of the Case The Plaintiffs, Havells India Limited and Havells International Inc., instituted the suit seeking protection of their well-known HAVELLS/ ![](blob:https://app.konanspade.com/01e0b768-27a3-4bcc-b47d-5398bb960a27) trademark against the Defendants’ use of the marks HAVAI, ![](blob:https://app.konanspade.com/76a048a1-0c73-41a9-ad22-1e3fc6fd9813), ![](blob:https://app.konanspade.com/2961f58f-224f-42fe-8537-10d25a7d09b5) and stylised logo variants in respect of **electrical goods**, including fans, air coolers, immersion rods and allied products. ### Plaintiffs’ Claims and Evidence The Plaintiffs placed material showing: - Continuous use of the **HAVELLS mark since 1942** - Registrations dating back to 1955 - Extensive sales and significant promotional expenditure - Prior judicial recognition of HAVELLS as a well-known trademark under the Trade Marks Act, 1999 The Plaintiffs alleged that the Defendants had adopted not only a deceptively similar mark but also comparable device marks, colour combinations and packaging while marketing identical goods through online marketplaces and their own website. ### The Sans-Serif Font Contention The Plaintiffs specifically contended that although the Defendants possessed registrations for the word mark HAVAI, the mark was commercially displayed in a **sans-serif stylised font** in which the terminal letter “I” appeared capable of being read as the letter “L”. This resulted in the mark being visually perceived and pronounced as “Ha-va-L”. According to the Plaintiffs, this typographical alteration was adopted to approximate the appearance and pronunciation of HAVELLS and exploit the goodwill associated with the Plaintiffs’ mark. ### Defendants’ Arguments The Defendants relied upon the following contentions: - Their own **trademark registrations** for the word mark HAVAI - HAVAI was derived from the Hindi word “Hava” (air) - The anti-dissection rule should apply - No monopoly could be claimed over ordinary alphabetic characters ## Issue Before the Court Whether the Defendants’ use of the stylised HAVAI marks amounted to **trademark infringement and/or passing off** despite the registration of the word mark HAVAI, and whether the adoption of a particular typographical style capable of creating visual and phonetic ambiguity could constitute deceptive similarity under the Trade Marks Act, 1999. ## Findings of the Court ### Registration Does Not Bar Passing Off The Delhi High Court reiterated that **registration of a trademark does not bar a passing off action**. Relying upon the Supreme Court’s decision in *S. Syed Mohideen v. P. Sulochana Bai*, the Court reaffirmed that passing off rights arising from prior use, goodwill and reputation operate independently of statutory registration. Consequently, a registered proprietor may nevertheless be restrained in a passing off action where the claimant establishes goodwill, misrepresentation and damage or likelihood of damage. The Court also referred to decisions including *Vaidya Rishi India Health Pvt. Ltd.*, *Western Digital Technologies Inc.*, and *Pernod Ricard India Pvt. Ltd.*, reiterating that passing off remains an **independent common law remedy** protecting commercial goodwill and reputation. ### Deceptive Similarity and the Consumer Perspective Applying the settled principles governing deceptive similarity, the Court observed that **trademark comparison must be undertaken from the perspective of a consumer with average intelligence and imperfect recollection**. It must consider the overall commercial impression rather than involve a mechanical side-by-side comparison. ### Stylised Mark Versus Registered Mark Although the Defendants relied upon their registered mark HAVAI, the Court noted that the **mark actually used in the marketplace was a stylised variation** of the registered mark. In particular, the registered HAVAI mark depicted the terminal “I” with a serif, whereas the mark actually used by the Defendants employed a stylisation without the serif. ### Phonetic Similarity Through Font Manipulation The Court found that, while the registered HAVAI mark would ordinarily be pronounced as “Ha-va-ee” or “Ha-vai”, the absence of the serif on the letter “I” in the mark actually used was likely to cause it to be perceived as an “L”. Consequently, the mark would be pronounced as **“Ha-va-L”**. The Court held that this resulted in **phonetic deceptive similarity** with HAVELLS. ### Mala Fide Change in Stylisation The Court accepted the Plaintiffs’ contention that the change in stylisation was not merely an incidental typographical variation. It found that the Defendants had moved away from their own registered mark without providing a plausible explanation. The Court concluded that the change in stylisation was a **mala fide attempt** to come close to the HAVELLS marks and create confusion amongst members of the public. ### Relevance of the HAVEIIS Precedent In reaching this conclusion, the Court also referred to its earlier decision in *Havells India Limited & Anr. v. Jai Bhagwan Sharma & Ors.*, concerning the mark **“HAVEIIS”**, where the stylisation of the letters “II” was capable of causing them to be read and pronounced as “LL”. The Court considered this earlier decision relevant to the assessment of the deceptive similarity arising from the typographical treatment of the marks. ### Likelihood of Confusion and Initial Interest Confusion The Court further noted that the rival parties dealt in **identical goods** and that the Plaintiffs enjoyed substantial goodwill and reputation in the HAVELLS marks. These factors enhanced the likelihood of confusion. The Court held that the circumstances attracted the principle of **initial interest confusion**, under which confusion is assessed at the stage when a consumer first encounters the Defendant’s goods. ### Use of Similar Device Marks, Colour Schemes, and Get-Up The Defendants’ use of **similar device marks and colour schemes and get-up** further reinforced the Court’s conclusion that the marks were deceptively similar. The Court found that the Defendants’ use was calculated to create an association with the Plaintiffs’ HAVELLS marks. ### Use of the Expression “HAVELLS SPARES” The Court also considered the Defendants’ use of the expression **“HAVELLS SPARES”** on spare parts and cooler covers. The judgment records that the Defendants had subsequently removed such references from their website and literature pursuant to an undertaking given to the Court. Nevertheless, the Court considered the prior use of the expression relevant in assessing the Defendants’ knowledge of the Plaintiffs and the overall circumstances of the dispute. ## Decision of the Court The Delhi High Court held that the Plaintiffs had established a **prima facie case** warranting temporary injunctive relief. The Court found that the three ingredients of passing off were prima facie satisfied: - **Goodwill** in the HAVELLS marks - **Misrepresentation** through the use of deceptively similar stylised marks - **Damage or injury** to goodwill, or likelihood thereof Finding that the balance of convenience lay in favour of the Plaintiffs and that irreparable harm and injury would be caused to their goodwill and reputation if the injunction were not granted, the Court **restrained the Defendants** from selling, marketing, advertising or offering for sale the impugned goods under HAVAI, its stylised and device variants, or any other mark deceptively similar to the Plaintiffs’ HAVELLS marks, during the pendency of the suit. The Court expressly clarified that its observations and findings were **tentative and prima facie** and would not affect the final adjudication of the suit. ## Conclusion and Implications The judgment is a significant development in Indian trademark jurisprudence as it demonstrates that **typographical stylisation and font selection** may, in appropriate circumstances, materially contribute to deceptive similarity and consumer confusion. By specifically examining the Defendants’ use of a sans-serif font that caused the letter “I” to be capable of being perceived as “L”, the Delhi High Court recognised that modern branding disputes may involve **subtle graphic and typographical manipulation** rather than direct copying of words. The decision also builds upon the Court’s earlier ruling concerning the mark HAVEIIS, where the stylisation of “II” was found capable of causing it to be read as “LL”. Equally important is the Court’s reaffirmation that **registration does not, by itself, defeat a passing off action**. Where an earlier user has established goodwill and the subsequent use involves misrepresentation and resulting or likely damage, the passing off remedy remains available notwithstanding the registration of the impugned mark. The ruling may provide useful guidance in future disputes involving stylised word marks, font-based deception, digital branding strategies and the protection of well-known trademarks against sophisticated forms of consumer confusion. However, since the findings in the present case were made at the interim stage and were expressly stated to be prima facie and tentative, the judgment should not be understood as a **final adjudication** of the parties’ rights. *Last Updated on 10 August, 2026* Get King Stubb & Kasiva’s legal updates in your Google feed[![Add King Stubb & Kasiva as a preferred source on Google](https://ksandk.com/wp-content/uploads/google_preferred_source_badge_light_en@2x.png)](https://www.google.com/preferences/source?q=https://ksandk.com/) --- ## Office Locations - [New Delhi](https://ksandk.com/locations/top-corporate-law-firm-in-delhi/) (HQ): +91-11-41318190 | info@ksandk.com - [Mumbai](https://ksandk.com/locations/top-corporate-law-firm-in-mumbai/): 3 offices (Nariman Point, Lower Parel, Andheri) | mumbai@ksandk.com - [Bangalore](https://ksandk.com/locations/top-corporate-law-firm-in-bangalore/): bangalore@ksandk.com - [Chennai](https://ksandk.com/locations/chennai/): chennai@ksandk.com - [Hyderabad](https://ksandk.com/locations/hyderabad/): hyderabad@ksandk.com - [Pune](https://ksandk.com/locations/pune/): pune@ksandk.com - [Kochi](https://ksandk.com/locations/kochi/): kochi@ksandk.com ## Contact - [Contact Page](https://ksandk.com/contact-us/) - General: info@ksandk.com | +91-11-41318190 - WhatsApp: +91-7428567444 - [Privacy Statement](https://ksandk.com/privacy-statement/) - [Terms of Use](https://ksandk.com/terms-of-use/)