- Home
- News
- Articles+
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- News
- Articles
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
Delhi High Court Grants Interim Relief To Bulgari In Copyright And Trademark Case, Citing Risk Of Irreparable Loss
Delhi High Court Grants Interim Relief To Bulgari In Copyright And Trademark Case, Citing Risk Of Irreparable Loss
The Delhi High Court recently granted interim relief to luxury brand Bulgari in a Copyright and Trademark Infringement suit initiated by it against a Designer Jewellery store.
The lawsuit centred on Bulgari's unique and iconic Serpenti Collection of jewellery, particularly the Serpenti Ocean Treasure Necklace – a high-jewellery piece with an artistic work that stands out for its originality and artistic uniqueness.
Justice Sanjeev Narula observed that Bulgari has presented a strong initial case in its favor, highlighting that without granting an interim injunction, Bulgari would face irreparable harm.
the court ordered that "till the next date of hearing, the defendant and/or anybody acting on their behalf are restrained from manufacturing, marketing, importing, exporting, using, selling, soliciting, displaying, and advertising on the internet through its physical stores, websites, social media pages like Instagram and Facebook, and/or by any other mode or manner,".
In August 2022, Bulgari discovered that the defendant Amaris a Delhi-based store, was selling a necklace named Shield-It! that closely resembled Bulgari's Serpenti Ocean Treasure Necklace. Bulgari claimed the artistic work was a blatant replication and substantial reproduction of their copyrighted work.
Furthermore, Bulgari alleged trademark infringement. Amaris was accused of using the trademarked SERPENTI name and variations like BVLGARI SERPENTI in their product descriptions, hashtags, and social media posts to mislead customers and capitalize on Bulgari's established brand reputation.
Taking into consideration the facts of the case, the Court noted, "the defendant’s use of the identical mark “SERPENTI” in respect of identical products constitutes a clear case of infringement under Sections 29(2)(c) read with 29(3) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
The Court issued an injunction, prohibiting the store from infringing on Bulgari's rights until the next hearing.
As per the injunction, Amaris is now prohibited from:
Selling or advertising their "Shield-It!" necklace or any product resembling Bulgari's "Serpenti Ocean Treasure Necklace."
Using the "SERPENTI" Trademark or similar variations in their jewellery products' name, description, or promotion, including social media posts.
Advocates Bitika Sharma, Rishi Bansal, Anusha Banerjee, and Jhanvi Badolia served as Legal Representatives for Bulgari in the case.
- #Bulgari
- #Delhi High Court
- #IP Suit
- #Trademark Infringement
- #Copyright Infringement
- #Interim Relief
- #Justice Sanjeev Narula
- #Serpenti Collection
- #Luxury Brand
- #Injunction
- #Trademark Act
- #Legal Proceedings
- #Amaris
- #Intellectual Property
- #Passing Off
- #Legal Notice
- #Serpenti Ocean Treasure Necklace
- #Trade Dress
- #Social Media