Allowed

Louis Vuitton Malletier v. M/S Capichino/Capture & Ors.

Delhi HC14 Feb 2024CS(COMM)/359/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order grants judgment to the plaintiff in an IP infringement suit against defendants who appeared ex-parte. The court emits a decree of permanent injunction against the sale of counterfeit Louis Vuitton goods and awards damages.

What did the court decide?

Decree of permanent injunction restraining import, sale, manufacturing of counterfeit goods and damages of Rs. 50,000/- awarded against each ex-parte defendant.

Louis Vuitton Malletier Vs M/S Capichino/Capture & Ors. — Intellectual Property | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~12

¶2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- CS(COMM) 359/2021 & I.A. 23982/2023

¶4

LOUIS VUITTON MALLETIER ..... Plaintiff

¶5

Through: Mr. Pravin Anand, Mr. Dhruv Anand, Ms. Udita Patro, Ms. Sampurnaa Sanyal, Ms. Nimrat Singh and Mr. Dhananjay Khurana, Advs.

¶6

versus

¶7

M/S CAPICHINO/CAPTURE & ORS. ..... Defendants

¶8

Through:

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL

¶10

O R D E R % 14.02.2024

¶11

I.A. 23982/2023

¶12

This application has been filed under Order VIII Rule 10 CPC on behalf of the plaintiff for judgment against defendant Nos.4 & 6-10 in light of the fact that defendant No.4 has been proceeded ex-parte ( vide order dated 09^th September, 2022); and the right to file written statement of defendant Nos.610 stands closed ( vide order 19^th September, 2023).

¶13

Mr. Pravin Anand, Counsel for the plaintiff further states that the suit has been decreed and settled qua defendant Nos.1, 2, 3 and 5 vide order dated 09^th September, 2022.

¶14

The plaintiff had filed this suit seeking permanent injunction restraining infringement of trademarks, copyright, passing off, dilution,

¶15

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/12/2024 at 15:43:13

¶16

tarnishing, damages, delivery up etc. against the defendants in respect of counterfeit products of the plaintiff (such as footwear, bags, valets, bags etc.) being sold/traded by the defendants. It was alleged that the counterfeit products used unauthorisedly various registered trademarks of the plaintiff, in particular the ‘LOUIS VUITTON’ wordmark as well as the intertwined ‘LV’

¶17

and

¶18

mark and the ‘TOILE MONOGRAM’ being

¶19

. Registrations with respect to the same marks are noted as under and are set out in annexure A of the plaint, reproduced as under:

¶20

This is a digitally signed order.

¶21

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/12/2024 at 15:43:13

¶22

This is a digitally signed order.

¶23

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

¶24

The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/12/2024 at 15:43:13

¶25

This is a digitally signed order.

¶26

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

¶27

The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/12/2024 at 15:43:13

¶28

This is a digitally signed order.

¶29

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

¶30

The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/12/2024 at 15:43:13

¶31

Counsel for the plaintiff has, however, submitted that trademarks have well-known status and have been recognised by this Court inter alia in the following orders:

¶32

i) Order dated May 6, 2009 in Louis Vuitton Malletier v. Abdul Salim and Ors. , CS (OS) No. 90 of 2006;

¶33

ii) Order dated March 31, 2014 in Louis Vuitton Malletier v. Arif Khatri and Ors. , CS (OS) No. 270 of 2014;

¶34

iii) Order dated August 20, 2015 in Louis Vuitton Malletier v. Manoj Khurana and Ors. , CS (OS) No. 1668 of 2013 [2015 (64) PTC 559 (Del)].

¶35

An ex-parte injunction was issued by this Court on 06^th August, 2021 which was made absolute on 28^th March, 2023.

¶36

In view of the above facts and circumstances, there being no response from defendant Nos.4 & 6-10, it is a fit case for pronouncing a judgment against the said defendants.

¶37

Accordingly, a decree be passed in terms of Prayers (i), (ii) and (iii) of para 53 of the plaint as under:

¶38

“i. Decree of permanent injunction restraining the Defendants, their partners, if any, officers, servants, agents, distributors, stockists and representatives from importing, manufacturing, warehousing, selling and/or offering for sale, advertising, directly or indirectly dealing, in any manner, in any goods, bearing the registered trademarks “LOUIS VUITTON”, “LV” logo, Toile monogram pattern, Damier pattern and/or LV Flower pattern or any similar trademark amounting to an

¶39

¶40

infringement of registered Trademarks Nos. 441451, 448228, 448229, 441452, 448230, 448231, 448235, 448234, 441453, 861145, 1335385 and 1335386;

¶41

ii. Decree of permanent injunction restraining the Defendants, their partners, if any, their officers, servants, agents, distributors, stockists and representatives from importing, manufacturing, warehousing, selling and/or offering for sale, advertising, directly or indirectly dealing, in any manner, in any goods, bearing the trademarks “LOUIS VUITTON”, the “LV” logo, the “Toile monogram” pattern, the Damier pattern and/or the LV Flower patterns or any similar trademark or doing any other act amounting to passing off of the Defendants’ products as those of the Plaintiff;

¶42

iii. Decree of permanent injunction restraining the Defendants, their principal officers, servants, agents, their affiliates, subsidiaries, distributors, and all others acting for and on their behalf from using trademarks, patterns, labels, logos or devices, which are identical or deceptively or confusingly similar to the Plaintiff’s trademarks “LOUIS VUITTON”, the “LV” logo, the “Toile monogram” pattern, the Damier pattern and/or the LV Flower patterns (the said trademarks) or any similar trademarks so as to misrepresent the quality/ origin of their goods and from taking unfair advantage of the Plaintiff’s reputation and goodwill in the said trademarks or any similar trademark thereby causing dilution and tarnishment of the Plaintiff’s abovementioned trademarks.”

¶43

As regards the issue of damages and costs, counsel for the plaintiff has pointed out to various amounts which have been settled with defendant Nos.13 & 5 which are noted in para 4 of the order dated 09^th September, 2022.

¶44

Accordingly, in consonance with the same, partial costs and damages are awarded against defendant Nos.4 & 6-10 of Rs.50,000/- each, to be paid to the counsel for the plaintiff, within a period of eight weeks.

¶45

Decree sheet be drawn up accordingly.

¶46

Suit i.e. CS(COMM) 359/2021 is disposed of. Pending applications

¶47

This is a digitally signed order.

¶48

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/12/2024 at 15:43:13

¶49

are rendered infructuous.

¶50

Order be uploaded on the website of this Court.

¶51

ANISH DAYAL, J

¶52

FEBRUARY 14, 2024/MK/ ig

¶53

This is a digitally signed order.

¶54

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/12/2024 at 15:43:13

Louis Vuitton Malletier v. M/S Capichino/Capture & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Louis Vuitton Malletier v. M/S Capichino/Capture & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rica S.P.A Vs M/S. Skin Safe Industries through Its Sole Proprietor & Ors.

Jockey International Inc. Vs M/S Femi & Ors.

Nokia Technologies Oy Vs Vivo Mobile Communication Co., Ltd. & Ors.

Nokia Technologies Oy Vs Vivo Mobile Communication Co. Ltd. & Ors.

Adani Wilmar Ltd. Vs Emami Agrotech Limited & Ors.

Dr. Reddys Laboratories Limited Vs Sain Medicaments Pvt. Ltd.

Bajaj Finance Limited Vs Kiran Udyog Private Limited

Ankush Arora Vs Dhairya Kathuria & Anr.

B and B Bake Private Limited & Anr. Vs Trdp Happy World Pvt. Ltd.

Securitas Ab Vs C. Visvalingam and Anr.

Shree Sant Kripa Intellectual, 7, Akshay Complex, Dhole Patil Road, Puna, Maharashtra Vs Glodon Software Co. Ltd. 336-B Bhai Randhir Singh Nagar, Ludhiana

Nektar Therapeutics Vs Controller of Patents

Zed Lifestyle Pvt. Ltd. Vs Hardik Mukeshbhai Pansheriya & Ors.

A.K. Al Muhaidib and Sons Vs Chaman Lal Sachdeva and Anr.