Delhi High Court: In a suit filed by the plaintiff seeking permanent injunction restraining infringement of plaintiff’s registered trade marks, i.e., “LOUIS VUITTON” (wordmark), the “LV” logo i.e., 
, “the Toile monogram pattern”, i.e., 
, “the Damier pattern”, “the LV Flower patterns” and other subsisting registered trade marks, passing off, unfair competition, rendition of accounts of profits, delivery up, etc., Mini Pushkarna, J., considering the submissions made and the Report of the Local Commissioner dated 5-12-2017, the Court stated that Defendants 7 and 8 have infringed plaintiff’s trade marks by selling counterfeit products. Therefore, the Court stated that the plaintiff was entitled to decree in its favour and also entitled to costs.
Thus, the Court decreed the suit in the plaintiff’s favour and against Defendants. The Court also directed Defendant 7 to pay cost of Rs. 20,000 to the plaintiff and Defendant 8 should pay cost of Rs. 22,000 to the plaintiff.
Background
Louis Vuitton Malletier, the plaintiff, was a well-known French luxury fashion and leather goods company owning the brand Louis Vuitton. In 1987, Louis Vuitton merged with Moet Hennessy SA, to form the LVMH Group. Since its inception in 1854, Louis Vuitton had become a global brand and had greatly expanded its international retail network. In its 160 years of history, the plaintiff’s goods have been highly sought after and have established a formidable international reputation for exclusivity and speciality. Due to these reasons, plaintiff has been recording huge sales of its products all over the world.
The name “LOUIS VUITTON” was derived from the name of its founder, Louis Vuitton. The plaintiff was the originator of the mark “LOUIS VUITTON” which was neither a common surname nor had a dictionary meaning, and therefore, could be characterised as an invented word. The plaintiff, along with the common law rights, had also acquired statutory rights over several of its trade marks in India.
Further, plaintiff’s trade marks also had a tremendous goodwill and reputation in India due to its reputation build upon providing high quality, designer products. In order to protect its trade marks from misuse by the third parties, plaintiff had acquired various orders from this Court, wherein, the Courts had recognised the well-known status of the plaintiff’s marks.
The plaintiff submitted that Defendants 7 and 8 were shops/stalls located in Gaffar Market, Karol Bagh, where infringing products bearing the plaintiff’s registered trade marks were found during the local commissions conducted by the Court appointed Local Commissioners, between the period of 1-8-2017 to 30-9-2017.
The plaintiffs submitted that there were no plausible reasons for the adoption and use of the plaintiff’s registered trade marks i.e., “LOUIS VUITTON” (wordmark), the “LV” logo, “the Toile monogram pattern”, “the Damier pattern” and “the LV Flower patterns” and therefore, such activities of the defendants, amounted to infringement of the plaintiff’s statutory rights over the said trade marks.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court noted that by order dated 1-8-2017, the present Court had passed an ex-parte ad interim injunction in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants restraining them from manufacturing, selling and/or offering for sale, advertising, directly or indirectly dealing in wallets, handbags, purses, belts and other goods etc., bearing the trade marks of the plaintiff or any deceptively variant thereof, which amounted to infringement of plaintiff’s trade marks, copyright and passing off.
The Court also noted that no defence was raised on behalf on Defendants 7 and 8. Thus, the plaintiff’s submission regarding the infringing activities carried out by them, stood established and the claims of the plaintiff remain unrebutted.
The Court stated that in light of the well-established status of the plaintiff’s trade mark as well-known marks, coupled with their adoption, extensive advertising, sales and continuous and uninterrupted use, the said trade marks have acquired distinctiveness and serve as a source for the plaintiff’s products. Therefore, any unauthorized use of the plaintiff’s marks, or any other mark, similar to the plaintiff’s mark, by any entity, was likely to cause confusion as to source of origin of the goods.
The Court stated that the mala fide intent of Defendants 7 and 8, was evident from their infringing activity of selling counterfeit products bearing the plaintiff’s trade mark with the sole objective of capitalizing on the immense goodwill and brand image enjoyed by the plaintiff. Considering the submissions made before this Court and the Report of the Local Commissioner dated 5-12-2017, the Court stated that Defendants 7 and 8 have infringed plaintiff’s trade marks by selling counterfeit products. Therefore, the Court stated that the plaintiff was entitled to decree in its favour and also entitled to costs.
Thus, the Court decreed the suit in the plaintiff’s favour and against defendants. The Court also directed Defendant 7 to pay cost of Rs. 20,000 to the plaintiff and Defendant 8 should pay cost of Rs. 22,000 to the plaintiff.
[Louis Vuitton Malletier v. Raj Belts, CS(COMM) 502 of 2017, decided on 10-03-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Plaintiff: Dhruv Anand, Sampurnaa Sanyal and Dhananjay Khanna, Advocates.
