Delhi High Court: The plaintiff alleged piracy by the defendants of design registrations, held by the plaintiff, in respect of jewellery collections sold under the names ‘SERPENTI’, ‘BVLGARI BVLGARI’, ‘B. ZEROI’, ‘INTARSIO’, ‘DIVA’s DREAM’ and ‘FIOREVER’. While exercising its commercial jurisdiction, the Single Judge Bench of C. Harishankar J.J., restrained the defendants from advertising or referring in any manner to the said designs and marks on any sites or locations, virtual or physical.
In the matter at hand, the plaintiff alleged that the defendants were engaged in making and selling counterfeit jewellery, imitating plaintiff’s registered design.
The Court stated that a bare glance at the goods sold by the defendants indicated that they are prima facie imitations of the plaintiff’s registered design to the extent that the plaintiff’s word mark BVLGARI in which the plaintiff holds registrations, have also been embossed by the defendants on the jewellery sold by them. It is, therefore, prima facie a rank case of counterfeiting, which necessarily calls for interference by the Court. Accordingly, the Court issued summons in the suits.
The Bench referred to the case of Laxmikant v Patel v. Chetanbhai Shah, (2002) 3 SCC 65 which had laid down law vis-à-vis an order of injunction in such cases. Thus, stated that defendants as well as others acting on their behalf including their stockists, distributors and others, stood restrained from dealing in any manner with the impugned goods or any other goods which may infringe or imitate the registered designs of the plaintiff or adopt an identical or deceptively similar trade dress or from using the registered word mark ‘BVLGARI’ of the plaintiff in respect of jewellery or any other allied items.
The Bench further restrained the defendants from advertising or referring in any manner to the said designs and marks on any sited or locations, virtual or physical.
[Bvlgari Spa v Samaira Jewels Private Limited, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 2161, decided on 10-04-2023]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the plaintiff- Advocate Rishi Bansal, Advocate Arshita Bansal and Advocate Aiswarya Debadarshini.
