Delhi High Court
Lacoste & Anr vs Aman Jain & Ors on 1 February, 2018
$~OS-3
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 01.02.2018
+ CS(OS) 2705/2014
LACOSTE & ANR ..... Plaintiffs
Through Ms.Kangan Roda and Ms.Shreya
Sethi, Advs.
versus
AMAN JAIN & ORS ..... Defendants
Through
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH
JAYANT NATH, J. (Oral)
1. This suit is filed by the plaintiffs seeking a decree of permanent
injunction directing the defendants, etc. from using the trade mark
LACOSTE and Crocodile Device or any other mark or trade mark
deceptively or confusingly similar to the said trade mark. Other connected
relies are also sought.
2. It is the case of the plaintiffs that it is a registered proprietor of
LACOSTE (Stylized) and Crocodile Device in India. Details for registration
are given in para 4 of the plaint. It is pleaded that the history of these
trademarks goes back to early 1930s. Plaintiff No. 1 was founded by the
famous tennis player Jean Rane Lacoste who won men's single tournament
twice at Wimbledon in 1925 and 1928 and other tennis championships. The
first trade mark filings of the mark "Crocodile Device" is said to have been
filed in the Commercial Court of Troyes, France on April 27, 1933. The
brands were launched in India in October 1993 on the opening of the first
LACOSTE Boutique.
3. It is pleaded that the sales of these products manufactured by the
plaintiffs have been increased by leaps and bounds. Plaintiff No. 2 has
already set up 24 LACOSTE boutiques across different states and cities in
India. The plaintiffs' trademarks LACOSTE and Crocodile Device for the
last many decades have been extensively advertised in several leading
international publications, periodicals, media and other circulations.
4. It is further pleaded that in the last week of August, 2014, the
plaintiffs received information from an independent informant about large
production of counterfeit LACOSTE garments in Ludhiana, Punjab. On
investigation, it has been revealed that a large amount of counterfeit
garments were packed and stocked in the defendants' premises which were
kept there for distribution in the domestic market. It is pleaded relying on
the photographs reproduced in the plaint that the defendants are presently
manufacturing counterfeit garments in an enormous quantity.
5. It is pleaded that the use of trade mark LACOSTE and Crocodile
Device by the defendants amounts to infringement of the plaintiffs' well
known and registered trade mark LACOSTE and Crocodile Device. It is also
pleaded that the said act of the defendants is causing irreparable harm and
injury to the plaintiffs. Hence, the suit has been filed.
6. As far as defendants No. 1 and 3 are concerned, the matter was settled
on 13.09.2017 and the parties filed an application under Order 23 Rule 3
CPC.
7. As far as the other defendants are concerned, on 21.11.2017 none
appeared for defendants No. 4 to 6. Today, also none has appeared for
defendants No. 4 to 6. Defendants No. 4 to 6 are proceeded ex parte.
8. As far as defendant No. 4 is concerned, he has not filed his written
statement. Defendants No. 5 and 6 have filed their written statements. The
written statements are bereft of any material defence. It has been pleaded in
the written statements that the plaintiffs have not shown their title in relation
to the trade mark LACOSTE nor there is any copyright in relation to
plaintiffs' right. It is further pleaded that the suit is an arm twisting method.
It is pleaded that defendant No. 4 is carrying on its business in Punjab. The
plaintiffs have filed the suit at the forum convenient to defendants No. 5
which is an arm twisting method. Other than this defence, there is nothing
else in the written statements to show any meaningful defence.
9. The facts stated in the plaint are supported by an affidavit. As far as
defendant No.4 is concerned a decree can be passed under Order 8 Rule 10
CPC as no written statement has been filed.
10. As far as defendant No. 5 and 6 are concerned, in my opinion
defendants No. 5 and 6 have no real prospects of successfully defending the
claim. The written statements are bereft of any material defence.
Accordingly, under Order 13A CPC a judgment can be passed against
defendants No. 5 and 6 also.
11. Mr. Gautam Mehta, Local Commissioner visited the premises of
defendants No. 4 to 6 on 06.09.2014 and he has noted recovery of
counterfeit documents illegally using the brand name LACOSTE from the
premises of the said defendants.
12. Accordingly, I pass a decree in favour of the plaintiffs and against
defendants No. 4 to 6 as per prayer clause A (i) and (ii) of the plaint. A
decree of mandatory injunction is also passed in favour of the plaintiff and
the defendants No.4 to 6 to destroy the goods seized by the Local
Commissioner and handed over to the defendants No.4 to 6 on superdari; in
the presence of a representative of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs shall also be
entitled to litigation costs. The bill of costs be filed within two weeks from
today duly certified by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs.
JAYANT NATH, J
FEBRUARY 01, 2018
rb
