Delhi High Court orders two persons to compensate Louis Vuitton for selling its Counterfeit products
Delhi High Court orders two persons to compensate Louis Vuitton for selling its Counterfeit products
Directs them to pay Rs.9.59 lakh to the company for taking an unfair advantage
The Delhi High Court has ordered two individuals to pay a fine to the French luxury brand Louis Vuitton for selling its counterfeit products.
The bench of Justice Amit Bansal observed that the defendants had blatantly infringed the company’s trademarks and it was not a case of innocent adoption.
The Court maintained that manufacturing and selling of the counterfeit products not only amounted to infringement of the registered trademarks but also to passing off the goods of the defendants as that of the plaintiff.
The Judge underlined that the defendants took unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Louis Vuitton marks and deceived the unwary consumers. Such acts could lead to the dilution of the plaintiff’s marks.
The bench ordered, "This court is convinced that this is a fit case for award of actual costs to the plaintiff. Accordingly, Rs.9,59,413 is awarded to the plaintiff as costs, which shall be paid by defendants 1 to 3. The costs of Rs.3,00,000 shall be paid by defendants 1 and 2 and the costs of Rs.6,59,414 shall be paid by defendant 3.”
Louis Vuitton had filed a suit seeking relief of permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from infringing its trademarks, passing off their goods as that of the plaintiff’s, dilution and other reliefs.
The plaintiff company stated that during the periodical market surveys in January-February 2018, it discovered the infringing and counterfeit activities of defendants no 1 to 3. Defendant no.1, Santosh was the sole proprietor of the defendant no. 2 entity, and defendant no. 3 owned and operated a manufacturing unit.
In February 2018, the Court had granted an ex parte ad interim injunction in favor of Louis Vuitton and restrained the defendants from using the trademarks ‘Louis Vuitton, and the logo ‘LV’, the Toile monogram pattern, the Damier pattern and the LV flower pattern.
The bench took note that though the defendants had entered ‘appearance’ in the matter earlier, no one appeared from their end in the last few hearings.
Considering the reports of the local commissioners, Justice Bansal noted that the defendants were indulging in the manufacturing and sales of counterfeit products. He ruled that they were liable to pay the damages as well as the costs incurred for the legal fees and the fees of the local commissioner.
The plaintiff was represented by advocates Dhruv Anand, Udita Patro, Sampurna Sanyal, and Nimrat Singh.
