Allowed

Retail Royalty Company & Anr. v. Garvit Khandelwal, Trading as Ektarfa Garments & Anr.

Delhi HC5 Apr 2024CS(COMM)/786/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order adjudicated a suit for trademark infringement by Retail Royalty Company against Garvit Khandelwal. The Court decreed the suit in favor of the Plaintiffs, granted a permanent injunction, and awarded damages of Rs. 3,00,000. The suit and pending applications were disposed of on consent terms.

What did the court decide?

Suit decreed in favor of Plaintiffs; permanent injunction granted; damages of Rs. 3,00,000 awarded.

Retail Royalty Company & Anr. Vs Garvit Khandelwal… — Intellectual Property | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~15

¶2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- CS(COMM) 786/2022

¶4

RETAIL ROYALTY COMPANY & ANR.

¶5

..... Plaintiffs

¶6

Through: Ms. Janaki Arun, Mr. Urfee Roomi, Ms. Radhika Arora and Mr. Ayush Dixit, Advocates.

¶7

versus

¶8

GARVIT KHANDELWAL, TRADING AS EKTARFA GARMENTS & ORS ...... Defendants Through: Mr. Garvit Khandelwal, Defendant No. 1 (in-Person).

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

¶10

O R D E R % 05.04.2024

¶11

The Plaintiffs have filed the instant suit for protection of their trademarks “AMERICAN EAGLE”, “AMERICAN EAGLE

¶12

OUTFITTERS”, “ ” and “ ”.¹ The Defendants

¶13

are alleged to be working in collusion for production and sale of counterfeit readymade clothing bearing the Plaintiffs’ marks.

¶14

It is contended that Defendant No. 1 operates the websites “www.ektarfa.co.in” and “https://ektarfa.online/” as well as a mobile application called ‘Ektarfa’, where he openly offers counterfeit readymade apparels that feature the Plaintiffs’ marks.

¶15

Page 1 of 4

¶16

CS(COMM) 786/2022

¶17

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 15/04/2024 at 11:49:13

¶18

The Defendants’ right to file written statement(s) stands closed, and through order dated 22^nd November, 2023, the Court confirmed the adinterim ex-parte injunction granted on 14^th November, 2022, restraining the Defendants from using the Plaintiffs’ marks.

¶19

Although his right has been closed, Defendant No. 1 – Mr. Garvit Khandelwal, has appeared in person and shared a copy of his written statement, which has been perused and returned. Along with the written statement, he has also handed over certain financial documents, including invoices, concerning his business operations under the Plaintiffs’ marks referred above, which are taken on record.

¶20

In the written statement, Defendant No. 1 has stated that he has no intention of defaming the Plaintiffs’ brand and that “ mistake is done by employee of company without any intention and also that before (sic) today date the Defendant No. 1 had no knowledge about American Eagle brand Company ”. He informs that presently, he does not have any existing stock of readymade clothing or other allied goods, packaging or label, which bear the Plaintiffs’ marks. In order to resolve the suit, Mr. Khandelwal states that he is willing to suffer a decree of permanent injunction. He further refers to the details of invoices between 26^th March, 2021 to 25^th October, 2023 furnished today, to submit that he has earned about Rs. 28,678/- from the sale of the impugned goods. Citing his lack of knowledge of the Plaintiffs’ marks and financial difficulties, Mr. Khandelwal requests the Court to take a lenient view while awarding damages. On a query, he submits that would be willing to pay an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- to the Plaintiffs towards damages. 6. In response to the above assertion, Ms. Janaki Arun, counsel for

¶21

1 “Plaintiffs’ marks”.

¶22

Page 2 of 4

¶23

CS(COMM) 786/2022

¶24

¶25

Plaintiffs, submits that Defendant No. 1 is a habitual infringer. On an earlier occasion, in a suit filed by a third-party against Defendant No. 1 on account of unauthorized use of their trademarks on readymade garments, titled Calvin Klein Trademark Trust v. Ektarfa Garments Private Limited and Ors. ,² a settlement was reached before the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre, leading to the suit being decreed for the reliefs of permanent injunction, without award of damages. Additionally, given the afore-noted statement of Mr. Khandelwal, Ms. Arun, on instructions, states that Plaintiffs are not pressing for any reliefs against Defendants No. 2 to 4. As regards the quantum of damages recoverable from Defendant No. 1, she leaves it to the discretion of the Court.

¶26

The Court has considered the afore-noted submissions and carefully examined the documents presented. In light of the stand taken by the parties, the following directions are issued: (i) The suit is decreed in favour of the Plaintiffs and against Defendant No. 1 in terms of paragraph No. 65(a) to (d) of the plaint. (ii) Considering the previous conduct of Defendant No. 1, as agreed, he is directed to pay an amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- to the Plaintiffs as damages within four months’ from today.

¶27

(iii) In light of the fact that the suit is being settled on consent terms, Plaintiffs’ request for refund of court fee is accepted. The Registry is directed to issue a certificate of refund of court fee in the name of Plaintiffs’ counsel, subject to Plaintiffs filing an affidavit authorizing their counsel to receive the payment.

¶28

The suit is decreed in the above terms.

¶29

2 Bearing CS(COMM) 520/2020.

¶30

Page 3 of 4

¶31

CS(COMM) 786/2022

¶32

¶33

Decree sheet be drawn up.

¶34

The suit and the pending applications are disposed of.

¶35

SANJEEV NARULA, J

¶36

APRIL 5, 2024 as

¶37

Page 4 of 4

¶38

CS(COMM) 786/2022

¶39

This is a digitally signed order.

¶40

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 15/04/2024 at 11:49:13

Retail Royalty Company & Anr. v. Garvit Khandelwal, Trading as Ektarfa Garments & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Retail Royalty Company & Anr. v. Garvit Khandelwal, Trading as Ektarfa Garments & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Puma Se Vs Ashok Kumar Trading as R.K. Industries

Societe Des Produits Nestle S. a. & Anr. Vs Grv Confectionery & Food Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

Puma Se Vs Ashok Kumar

Mr. Sunil Kathuria & Anr. Vs Trade Fair Times & Ors.

Sanofi Sa & Ors. Vs Syndicate Medicare Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.

Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited Vs M/S. International Engineers & Project Consultant Ltd.

Simplilearn Solutions Private Limited Vs Simplilearn Education Consulting Private Limited

Sporta Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Vs John Doe and Others

M/S Unified Vision Capital Ltd. & Ors. Vs M/S Uv Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd.

Societe Des Produits Nestle S. a. & Anr. Vs Grv Confectionery & Food Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

Puma Se Vs Ashok Kumar

Container Corporation of India Limited Vs Roadwings International Pvt. Limited

The Polo/Lauren Company L.P. Vs M/S Home Needs

Jk Lakshmi Cement Limited Vs Ram Byash Yadav, Propreitor of Vikas Hardware & Anr.