Delhi High Court Grants Interim Relief To Burberry; Suspects Petrol Perfumer Of Trademark Violation
Delhi High Court Grants Interim Relief To Burberry; Suspects Petrol Perfumer Of Trademark Violation
The British fashion house pointed out that the defendant company was a habitual infringer
The Delhi High Court has granted an interim injunction to luxury brand Burberry in a trademark infringement and passing off case.
The bench of Justice Sanjeev Narula observed that the company Petrol Perfumer Limited violated Burberry’s intellectual property rights, affecting its long-earned goodwill and reputation.
The judge stated, "The defendant’s adoption of the trademarks does not appear to be in good faith. It suggests a deliberate attempt to exploit the reputation and goodwill associated with the plaintiff’s marks. Such conduct is unacceptable, constituting a clear misrepresentation to consumers and effectively nullifying any superficial distinctions between the trademarks."
Burberry had claimed that the defendant engaged in deceptive practices, exploiting its market standing. It manufactured and sold perfumes and related items under the registered marks 'My Petrol’ and 'Mr. Petrol', which resembled Burberry's trademarks 'My Burberry' and 'Mr. Burberry’. It also copied Burberry's trade dress for the products.
The British fashion house contended that since the marks were used for identical goods, there was a strong likelihood of confusion and dilution of its marks in the market.
The counsel for Burberry pointed out that the defendant company was a habitual infringer. Its modus operandi was to counterfeit products and imitate the marks and trade dress of popular brands that had gained recognition.
The defendant’s counsel countered by stating that since the marks in question were registered, Burberry could not press for an injunction based on infringement.
However, the court suggested that Burberry could seek an injunction for passing off. It noted that all three ingredients of passing off established a prima facie case in its favor:
a) Burberry had built a reputation through its marks.
b) The defendant was using the disputed marks and labels' trade dress on identical goods.
c) If the defendant was allowed to continue doing so, it would result in irreparable harm to Burberry.
Thus, Justice Narula directed, “Till the next date of hearing, the defendant, its representatives and/or anybody acting on its behalf is restrained from using, selling, manufacturing, marketing, importing, exporting or dealing in any manner in the physical or online marketplace, under the impugned marks/labels/trade dress ‘My Petrol.’”
Advocates Bitika Sharma, Rishi Bansal, Neeraj Bhardwaj and Vinny Pradhan appeared for Burberry.
Petrol Perfumer was represented by advocates Archana Sahadeva and Harshita Bhoi.
