Delhi High Court: A suit was filed by the H-D U. S. A., LLC (plaintiff) seeking relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from infringing the trademarks and copyright of the plaintiff, passing off their goods and services as that of the plaintiff, and other ancillary reliefs. Amit Bansal, J., granted a decree of permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff, restraining the defendant from manufacturing, selling, advertising, or dealing in any goods bearing the infringing mark/logo or any mark/logo deceptively similar to the plaintiff’s trademarks. The Court also directed the destruction of all infringing goods in the defendant’s possession and awarded ₹5,00,000/- as damages and costs to the plaintiff.
The plaintiff, Harley-Davidson U.S.A., LLC, a company incorporated in the United States of America, is globally renowned for manufacturing and marketing motorcycles and an extensive line of branded merchandise, including apparel, shoes, and accessories. The plaintiff adopted and began using the mark “HARLEY-DAVIDSON” in 1903, followed by the introduction of its now-iconic “Bar & Shield” logo in 1910, which is registered with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Since the 1930s, the plaintiff has consistently used the ‘Eagle Logo/Device mark,’ which has come to function as a strong source identifier due to its distinctive layout, trade dress, and design features.
The plaintiff holds over 2,200 trademark registrations and pending applications worldwide, including in India, where its trademarks span various classes including classes 9, 12, 16, 18, 25, 26, 34, 35, 41, and 43. In India, Harley-Davidson began operations in 2009 through its wholly owned subsidiary and later partnered with Hero MotoCorp. The products, widely promoted through their official Indian website and dealerships, have gained significant reputation and consumer goodwill. In 2014 alone, their sales in India stood at ₹488 crore, with promotional expenses exceeding ₹5 crore. The plaintiff’s logos and associated trade dress also qualify as artistic works under Section 2(c) of the Copyright Act, 1957.
In July 2023, the plaintiff’s representative discovered the unauthorized use of a deceptively similar logo on footwear sold under the brand name ‘RONTEX’. These shoes were being stocked and sold by the defendant, proprietor of Red Rose Industries. A visit by the plaintiff’s investigator to the defendant’s premises confirmed the infringing activities, and the defendant’s business card was collected. Further investigations revealed the infringing goods being sold through major e-commerce platforms, including Amazon, Flipkart, and IndiaMART. The infringing mark bore stark similarity to the plaintiff’s Eagle Logo, both structurally and visually. The plaintiff asserted that this unauthorized use amounted to trademark infringement, copyright infringement, and passing off.
On 01-09-2023, the Court issued summons in the suit and notice in the interlocutory application, appointing a Local Commissioner to inventory the infringing goods. On 05-09-2023, the Commissioner visited the premises and seized 640 pairs of infringing shoes. On 25-09-2023, after hearing both sides, the Court granted an interim injunction in favour of the plaintiff, restraining the defendant from selling or dealing in goods bearing the infringing mark. The Court also directed a status quo regarding the inventoried products and mandated the defendant to file sales records and invoices related to any already-sold infringing goods. Despite multiple opportunities, the defendant delayed and failed to properly file the written statement, prompting the Joint Registrar to close his right to file the same on 21-08-2024, after noting an unexplained six-month delay.
Subsequently, the plaintiff filed an application under Order XIII-A and Order VIII Rule 10 of the CPC seeking a summary judgment. Notices were issued, but the defendant still failed to file any response or appear, necessitating the matter to proceed ex parte.
The Court observed that the plaintiff’s averments remained uncontroverted due to the defendant’s failure to file a written statement or affidavit of denial, thereby invoking Rule 3 of the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018. The Court thus deemed the facts and documents on record to be admitted. The comparison between the plaintiff’s Eagle logo and the defendant’s infringing mark revealed near-identical features like the eagle, ribbon design, shield-like geometric background, and overall trade dress with the only modification being the substitution of “HARLEY-DAVIDSON CLOTHES” with “SPORTS CASUAL.” The replication was held to be visually and structurally similar and indicative of deliberate copying.
Further, the Court found that the defendant’s online presence and listings demonstrated a pattern of habitual infringement. Given the identical class of goods (footwear), the overlapping trade channels (online and physical), and the similarity in marks, the likelihood of consumer confusion and consequent dilution of the plaintiff’s goodwill was evident.
The Court also held that the defendant had dishonestly adopted the mark to ride on the reputation and goodwill of the plaintiff’s globally recognized trademarks. This constituted not only trademark and copyright infringement but also passing off. The Court reiterated that commercial suits are meant to be resolved expediently, and trials are not mandatory where the defendant lacks any real prospect of success.
The Court permanently restrained the defendants from manufacturing, stocking, selling, advertising, or dealing in any goods bearing the impugned mark or any deceptively similar mark to the plaintiff’s logos. The Court directed that the inventoried stock of infringing products (640 pairs) is to be destroyed in the presence of the plaintiff’s authorized representative. The Court awarded ₹5,00,000 as damages and costs.
[H-D U. S. A., LLC v Vijaypal Dhayal, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 2336, decided on 02-04-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Mr. Ranjan Narula, Mr. Shakti Priyan Nair and Mr. Parth Bajaj, Advocates for plaintiff
Mr. Arnav Goyal, Advocate for defendant
