- 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 succor to Louis Vuitton in copyright infringement case against shopping website
Delhi High Court succor to Louis Vuitton in copyright infringement case against shopping website
Luxury brand demands damages and costs and blocking the portal
The Delhi High Court has granted interim relief to Louis Vuitton in the copyright infringement suit against shopping website www.haute24.com and others, for unauthorized use of its photographs.
Noting that the luxury brand had made out a prima facie case of copyright infringement, Justice C Hari Shankar said that it was entitled to interim relief to end the infringement.
Louis Vuitton informed that it maintained a website that displayed the line of products available for sale. To advertise the items, it hired world-famous photographers and high-end fashion models on a contract basis. The photographs used on the website qualified as 'artistic works' under the Copyrights Act, 1957.
It informed that in January and November 2022, the company's copyrighted photographs were misused by the defendants to sell their products on the website www.haute24.com.
The company sought a decree of permanent injunction against the defendants and their agents from reproducing, copying or publishing the photographs via the website or through any other medium. It also demanded damages and costs and requested the website of the defendant to be blocked.
The court ordered, "Till the next date of hearing, the defendants 1 and 2 and all their agents, servants, etc., are injuncted from copying, issuing to the public or publishing, on their website www.haute24.com or through any other medium, the allegedly infringing photographs."
Louis Vuitton was represented by Dodd & Co. The team comprised advocates Anirudha Valsangkar, Rishika Aggarwal, and Abhilash Gupta.