The Delhi High Court recently directed three individuals to pay ₹9.59 lakh to the French luxury brand Louis Vuitton for selling its counterfeit products.
The order was passed by Justice Amit Bansal after he determined that the defendants had blatantly infringed on the Louis Vuitton trademarks and that this was not a case of innocent adoption.
The Court observed that manufacturing and selling counterfeit products not only constitutes infringement of registered trademarks, but also passing off the defendants’ goods as those of the plaintiff.
The Court stated that the defendants have taken unfair advantage of the plaintiff’s marks’ reputation and goodwill, as well as misled unwary consumers about their affiliation with the plaintiff by dishonestly adopting the plaintiff’s registered marks without any plausible explanation.
The judgement emphasized that such defendants’ actions would likewise result in dilution of the plaintiff’s marks.
“This Court is convinced that this is a case in which actual costs should be awarded to the plaintiff. As a result, the plaintiff is granted ₹9,59,413/- in expenses, which will be paid by defendants 1 to 3. The defendants no. 1 and 2 shall pay costs of ₹3,00,000/- and the defendant no. 3 shall pay costs of ₹6,59,414/-,” the judge ordered.
The Court was hearing a case in which Louis Vuitton sought a relief of permanent injunction to prevent the defendants from infringing on its trademarks, passing off their goods as the plaintiff’s, dilution, and other reliefs.
It was said that the plaintiff discovered the infringing and counterfeit actions of defendants 1 to 3 during periodic market surveys in January and February of 2018. Defendant number one, Santosh, was the sole proprietor of defendant number two’s organisation, while defendant number three owned and operated a manufacturing unit.
In an order passed on February 23, 2018, the Court granted an ex-parte ad interim injunction in favour of Louis Vuitton, prohibiting the defendants from using the trademarks “Louis Vuitton”, “LV” logo, the Toile monogram pattern, the Damier pattern, and the LV flower pattern.
The Court noted that, notwithstanding the defendants’ earlier presence in the case, no one appeared for them in the last few hearings.
Justice Bansal reviewed the local commissioners’ reports and concluded that the defendants were engaged in the manufacture and selling of counterfeit goods.
As a result, it ruled that the defendants must pay the damages as well as the costs of legal fees and the local commissioner’s fees.
