Delhi High Court: In a commercial suit seeking permanent injunction restraining the defendants from infringing the trade marks of Louis Vuitton (‘LV’) and passing off their goods and services, the Single Judge Bench of Amit Bansal, J., held that the defendants have infringed the trade mark of Louis Vuitton and decreed the suit accordingly.
Background:
In June 2023, Louis Vuitton came across infringing products bearing the ‘LV’ marks being offered for sale/sold by defendants 1 and 2. Through a detailed investigation, it learned that defendant 1 has been operating through three multi-storied stores and one godown in Surat, Gujarat. The investigation also revealed that defendants 1 and 2 conduct online operations through various accounts on social media and third-party e-commerce platforms.
For the investigation, a test purchase was made through WhatsApp which led to the delivery of an infringing product bearing LV’smarks in Delhi. The association between the Whatsapp number with the two Instagram handleswas also confirmed. The investigation further revealed that defendants use a telegram group where listings of infringing goods and products bearing the LV’s marks are posted regularly. These listings guide users to various e-commerce websites with four distinct URLs, all of which are established and maintained using subdomains of defendant 3’s main domain ‘ .
On 05-10-2023, this Court had granted an ex-parte ad interim injunction restraining the defendants from manufacturing, selling, offering for sale, importing, exporting, or dealing with any products bearing the LV marks in any manner. Since the defendants did not respond or appear in the matter, they were proceeded against ex-parte.
LV now seeks a decree in terms of Order of the (‘CPC’)
Analysis:
The Court relied on the case of Satya Infrastructure Ltd. v. Satya Infra & Estates Pvt. Ltd., , wherein a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court held that no purpose will be served in such cases by directing the plaintiffs to lead ex-parte evidence in the form of an affidavit by way of examination-in-chief and which invariably is a repetition of the contents of the plaint.
Based on the finding of this case, the Court stated that the plaint has been duly verified and is also supported by the affidavit of LV. The Court also noted that since no written statement has been filed on behalf of the defendants, all the averments made in the plaint have to be taken to be admitted. Further, since no affidavit of admission/denial has been filed on behalf of the defendants in respect of the documents filed with the plaint, the Court held that the said documents are deemed to have been admitted as per Rule 3 of the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules 2018. Therefore, the Court opined that this suit does not merit trial and is capable of being decreed in terms of Order of .
The Court also noted that from the plaint and the evidence on record, Louis Vuitton has been able to prove that it is the registered proprietor of the well-known ‘LV’ marks. The Court also noted that the evidence placed on record by Louis Vuitton shows that the defendants are indulging in the infringement and passing off of the registered ‘LV’ marks by selling/offering for sale counterfeit products bearing LV’s registered trade marks. Thus, the Court held it is a clear case of trade mark infringement.
The Court stated that the defendants have taken unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Louis Vuitton’s trade mark and have also deceived unwary consumers by dishonestly adopting Louis Vuitton’s registered marks without any plausible explanation. Therefore, Louis Vuitton has established a case of passing off as well.
The Court held that, since the defendants have failed to take any requisite steps to contest the present suit, despite having suffered an ad interim injunction order, it is evident that they have no defence to put forth on merits.
Decision:
The Court decreed the suit in the following manner:
By directing defendants 1 and 2 to deliver all infringing and counterfeit merchandise that was seized during the execution of the Local Commission.
By passing a decree of mandatory injunction against defendant 3 to block all the subdomains used by defendants 1 and 2.
By allowing Louis Vuitton to appear before the Joint Registrar for determination of the costs incurred by it in the present litigation to be paid by the defendants
[Louis Vuitton Malletier v. Abdulkhaliq Abdulkader Chamadia, Civil Suit (COMM) 700 of 2023, decided on: 12-11-2024]
Advocate who appeared in this case :
For the plaintiff: Ms. Rishika Aggarwal, Advocate
The post appeared first on .