The Delhi High Court has ordered a Sadar Bazar market trader on Monday to pay Louis Vuitton Rs. 5 lakhs as a compensation within four weeks or face civil prison for a week after he was found guilty of contempt for continuing to sell counterfeit products of the famous French luxury brand.
According to Justice C Hari Shankar, “Counterfeiting is an extremely serious matter, with ramifications that extend far beyond the confines of the petty counterfeiter’s small shop. It is a commercial evil that erodes brand value, amounts to deception with the trusting consumer, and has serious long-term consequences for the fabric of the national economy.”
It added that even while staying within the bounds of Order XXXIX Rule 2A of CPC (consequence of disobedience or breach of injunction), the court must be “economically and socially sensitised” and send a deterrent message to others who engage in or intend to engage in the practice of counterfeiting.
On September 23, 2021, the court, while hearing a suit filed by Louis Vuitton Malletier, had restrained several small entities from “importing, manufacturing, selling or offering for sale, or otherwise dealing with the registered trademarks “Louis Vuitton Malletier” or the logo “LV,” as well as other associated monograms and patterns that would infringe the plaintiff’s registered trademarks.
Louis Vuitton later filed an application alleging that the trader, one of the defendants in the suit, violated the restraining order. It was submitted that the trader continued to sell LV-branded belts at least until September of last year.
According to Justice Shankar, the trader chose to continue his business of selling counterfeited LV branded goods despite being barred from doing so.
Observing that apologies and entreaties to the court would be ineffective, the court ordered, “I am of the opinion that the interests of justice would be best served if, in the present case, the defendant is directed to pay, to the plaintiff, 5 lakhs within four weeks from today, failing which Mr. Javed Ansari, the proprietor of Defendant 2, shall suffer incarceration in civil prison in Tihar Jail for a period of one week.”
The court also stated that if the injunction is only with respect to one brand, it cannot consider other brands that may have been counterfeited while proceeding under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the CPC.
Noting that in the injunction granted vide its September 2021 order was with respect to manufacture and marketing of goods bearing the LV brand, the court observed, “There is no injunction regarding manufacture and marketing of any other brand. As the provision is clearly limited to the injunction granted, the defendant’s manufacture or marketing of any other brand cannot statutorily constitute a relevant consideration under Order XXXIX Rule 2A.”
According to Order XXXIX Rule 2A, the court cannot rewrite the order alleged to be in breach because that would lie completely outside the province of its jurisdiction.
The Court added, “Even if it were assumed that the defendant was counterfeiting other brands, punishing the defendant under Order XXXIX Rule 2A would necessitate the court rewriting the order dated 29th September 2021 passed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 as injuncting the defendant not only from manufacturing goods bearing the LV brand, but also from manufacturing goods bearing other brands.”
