The Delhi High Court has ordered two individuals to pay Louis Vuitton, the French luxury brand, a sum of 9.59 lakh for selling fake products.
Justice Amit Bansal issued the order after observing that the defendants had blatantly infringed upon Louis Vuitton’s trademarks, and it was not a case of unintentional adoption.
The court held that the manufacture and sale of counterfeit products not only constituted a breach of trademark but also involved the defendants misrepresenting their goods as those of the plaintiff.
The court stated that the defendants had deceitfully appropriated the plaintiff’s registered marks without a reasonable explanation and taken undue advantage of the goodwill and reputation of the plaintiff’s marks. The judge further noted that such actions by the defendants would dilute the plaintiff’s trademarks.
“This Court is convinced that this is a fit case for award of actual costs to the plaintiff. Accordingly, ₹9,59,413/- is awarded to the plaintiff as costs, which shall be paid by the defendants 1 to 3. Costs of ₹3,00,000/- shall be paid by the defendants no. 1 and 2 and costs of ₹6,59,414/- shall be paid by the defendant no.3,” the court ordered.
Louis Vuitton had filed a lawsuit against three defendants seeking a permanent injunction to prevent the defendants from infringing its trademarks, passing off their products as those of the plaintiff, dilution, and other reliefs.
During periodic market surveys conducted in January and February 2018, the plaintiff discovered infringement and counterfeiting activities by Defendants Nos. 1 to 3. Defendant No. 1, Santosh, was the sole owner of Defendant No. 2, and Defendant No. 3 owned and operated a manufacturing facility.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex parte ad interim injunction in favour of Louis Vuitton and restrained the defendants from using the “Louis Vuitton”, “LV” logo, the Toile monogram pattern, the Damier pattern, and the LV flower pattern trademarks in an order issued on February 23, 2018.
The court noted that although the defendants had previously entered appearances in the case, no one had appeared on their behalf in recent hearings. Justice Bansal reviewed the local commissioners’ reports and determined that the defendants were manufacturing and selling counterfeit goods. The court concluded that the defendants are responsible for paying the damages as well as the legal fees and fees of the local commissioner.
