close
close

Apre-salomemanzo

Breaking: Beyond Headlines!

    • Delhi High Court permanently bars two businessmen from damaging French luxury brand Louis Vuitton
    aecifo

    Delhi High Court permanently bars two businessmen from damaging French luxury brand Louis Vuitton

    Umito Posted on

    The Delhi High Court has issued a permanent injunction in favor of French luxury brand Louis Vuitton, against the infringement of its trademark and fraudulent marketing of its products bearing the ‘LV’ brand by two businessmen.

    Plaintiff Louis Vuitton Malletier, which manufactures and sells clothing, footwear, fashion accessories and cosmetics and has several trademark registrations in India, had filed a suit for permanent injunction against defendant nos. 1 and 2, preventing them from infringing the trademarks of the former. Accused nos. 1 and 2 sell shoes and accessories like sunglasses and wallets, as ‘Mr. Shoes’ and ‘Mr. Retail’ respectively.

    A single judge bench composed of Justice Amit Bansal in his order it was said: “From the statements made in the complaint and the evidence placed on record, the plaintiff was able to prove that he was the registered owner of the well-known trademarks “LV”. Plaintiff filed screenshots of social media platforms and websites operated by Defendants as well as photographs of Defendants’ products as Document Nos. 1. 12 and 13 of the documents filed with the Complaint to demonstrate that Defendants engage in counterfeiting and deceptive marketing of the Applicant’s registered trademarks “LV” by selling/offering for sale counterfeit products bearing the Applicant’s registered trademarks.”

    “The defendants have unfairly taken advantage of the reputation and reputation of the plaintiff’s mark and have also deceived unwary consumers about their association with that of the plaintiff by dishonestly adopting the plaintiff’s registered marks without any plausible explanation. Therefore, the plaintiff has also established a case of deception“, added the court.

    The complainant stated that its marks ‘LV’ have been declared a ‘well-known mark’ in various judgments passed by Indian courts. Its brand “LOUIS VUITTON” is also included in the list of well-known brands in the Trademark Registry of India. The plaintiff alleged that defendant nos. 1 and 2 sold products bearing the “LV” brand. She argued that the defendants used social media accounts and third-party e-commerce platforms to sell the counterfeit products.

    Louis Vuitton said it conducted an investigation that found the defendants use a telegram group where lists of counterfeits are posted regularly and where those lists guide users to e-commerce sites. He stated that these e-commerce websites are created and maintained using the subdomain of the main domain of Selloship Services LLP (Respondent No. 3).

    The High Court noted that on October 5, 2023, the Court had issued an ex parte interim injunction restraining the defendants from manufacturing, selling, importing or exporting products bearing the LV marks. The court declared that the The complaint has been duly verified and is also supported by the affidavit of the plaintiff. Noting that no written statement had been filed on behalf of the defendants, the court observed that all the averments made in the complaint should be considered admitted.

    “Further, since no affidavit of admission/denial has been filed on behalf of the respondents in respect of the documents filed along with the plaint, as per Rule 3 of the Delhi High Court Rules, 2018 (original side), these are deemed to have been admitted. Therefore, in my opinion, this suit does not deserve to be tried and it can be tried under Order VIII, Rule 10 of the CPC.“, the court said.

    He relied on Order VIII, Rule 10 CPC, which empowers the court to enter judgment against a party if no written statement has been filed by the party within the required time.

    “Given that Defendants have not taken any required action to contest this action, despite being subject to an interim injunction, it is apparent that Defendant has no defense to present on the merits “, he added.

    The Court observed that photographs of the products sold by the defendants and screenshots of the social media platforms and websites operated by them indicate that they are selling counterfeit products. He held that defendant nos. 1 and 2 engaged in counterfeiting and deceptive marketing of Louis Vuitton’s trademarks.

    The Court said the defendants had improperly taken advantage of the reputation and goodwill of the LV marks and had deceived consumers by dishonestly adopting the mark.

    It therefore issued a permanent injunction against defendants no. 1 and 2 and issued a delivery order, requiring the defendants to deliver all the counterfeit products seized during the execution of the Local Commission.

    The Court also ordered respondent no.3 to block all subdomains used by respondent no.1 and 2.

    She further requested representatives of Louis Vuitton to appear before the Joint Registrar to determine the actual costs incurred by Louis Vuitton in connection with the litigation.

    Case Title: Louis Vuitton Malletier c/s Abdulkhaliq Abdulkader Chamadia & Ors

    Click here to read/download the order

    Umito
    View all posts

    You Might Also Like