Louis Vuitton Malletier vs. Iqbal Singh and others

Louis Vuitton is a luxury retail company and one of the top fashion houses in the world. The logo ‘LV’ is a protected trademark. All the products are monogrammed with the trademark LV making it one of the most valuable brands in fashion. A suit for injunction was filed by Louis Vuitton Malletier (India) against Iqbal Singh and others as the defendants were accused of trademark infringement of the logo LV.

The products of plaintiff are exclusive and have a high reputation in the market. The plaintiff has been using the trademark LV continuously and uninterruptedly since 1896. The plaintiff has a copyright over a design “Toile Monogram” which consists of flower patterns on canvas. These are both protected in India and have been recognized by Delhi High Courtin Order dated March 31, 2014 as passed by the Delhi High Court in Louis Vuitton Malletier v. Arif Khatri &Anr., CS (OS) 270 of 2014 (Exhibit No. PW-1/21); and  Order dated May 9, 2009 as passed by the Delhi High Court in Louis Vuitton Malletier v. Abdul Salim &Ors., CS (OS) 90 of 2006 where they were termed as well-known marks and protected under trademarks. The defendant’s own shops in Sadar Bazar, Delhi and were alleged of dealing counterfeit goods which infringed the trademark of the plaintiff.

A regular civil suit was filed in December 2011, for permanent injunction restraining infringement of its trademark, passing off, dilution, rendition of accounts of profits, damages and delivery up. The summons for the suit was directed to the defendantsby joint registrar and an ex-parte injunction was granted in favour of plaintiff when the defendants failed to appear. The defendants applied for a condonation of delay and filed a written statementbut the matter was presented before the court before the documents could be examined.

The infringement came into light during the survey done by the investigator for the plaintiffs. The court appointed two commissioners who found 8 wallets in the possession of Defendants bearing LV trademark.The case was referred to Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre, but parties failed to arrive at a settlement. The matter was referred to the commissioner for recording evidence of the suit. The defendants counsel informed the commissioner that defendants were not responding to communications when plaintiffs applied for bringing certain documents on record and it was allowed after payment of costs.

The defendants filed a written statement but did not file any evidence and did not refute any evidence presented by plaintiffs. It did not disclose any material facts of the case and just contended the plaintiffs were guilty of suppression of material facts.The defendants stated that they have been in innocent use of the name of name of “Louis Vuitton Malletier” for the last over 8 to 9 years. The Defendants had nothing to do with the logo of the Plaintiff and are usingtheir own logo since the inception of the business. They also claimed that there was no cause of action for the case. The plaintiffs evidence proved that the defendants were guilty of infringement and were contrary to the contentions made by defendants in written statement. The plaintiffs also stated that defendants have been violating plaintiffs registered trademark for 8-9 years and an aggravated punitive damage be awarded to the plaintiff for dilution of trademark. The damages claimed by plaintiff were Rs. 1 Crore for illegal activities done by plaintiff for 8-9 years and estimating a profit of Rs. 5000 per day. This was the quantum of damage or loss suffered by plaintiff due to infringing activities by defendants and unfair profits earned by them.

Decision
The court found that the defendants were guilty of infringement and their conduct was egregious and called for the court to draw adverse inference against them. The suit was decreed in favour of plaintiff and damages of Rs. 3,50,000 were awarded flagrant activities against the rights of the plaintiff. The cost of litigation including advocate’s fees Rs. 9,27,296 was also awarded to the plaintiff.

Conclusion
The interim decision of court was held up for injunction providing immediate relief to the plaintiffs. The Case set a precedent for future cases related to trademark infringement and passing off and selling of counterfeit goods where the registered trademark is being exploited on basis of goodwill. The decision will deter others from indulging in similar infringing activities.

About the Author: Divyanshi Arora, LLM student from Symbiosis Law School, Intern at Khurana and Khurana Advocates and IP Attorneys and can be reached at swapnils@khuranaandkhurana.com

Leave a Reply

Archives

  • October 2021
  • September 2021
  • August 2021
  • July 2021
  • June 2021
  • May 2021
  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • September 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010