Recently, the Delhi High Court dealt with a trademark infringement suit filed by Louis Vuitton Malletier (LVM) seeking a permanent injunction against the defendants for infringing its well-known ‘LV’ trademark. The Court granted relief in favour of the plaintiff, issuing a decree restraining the defendants from using the ‘LV’ marks and other related remedies.
Brief Facts:
In the present case, Louis Vuitton Malletier (LVM), is a renowned brand involved in manufacturing and distributing luxury goods including clothing, footwear, cosmetics, and accessories. The plaintiff’s iconic ‘LV’ marks have been recognized as well-known trademarks by Indian courts. LVM has been operating in India since 2003, with several exclusive stores, and has invested heavily in advertising and promoting its products. The defendants, Abdulkhaliq Abdulkader Chamadia and Abdurrub Abdulkader Chamadia, doing business under the names 'Mr. Shoes' and 'Mr. Retail,' were found selling counterfeit goods using the 'LV' trademark. They were operating both offline and online, including via social media and third-party e-commerce platforms. The plaintiff initiated an investigation, which confirmed the sale of infringing products, and subsequently filed a suit for permanent injunction.
Contentions of the Plaintiff:
The Counsel for the plaintiff argued that the defendants were infringing the plaintiff’s registered trademarks by selling counterfeit products. They sought an injunction restraining the defendants from using the ‘LV’ marks and other related reliefs, emphasizing that the trademarks had been declared well-known by Indian courts.
Observations of the Court:
The Court thoroughly examined the evidence presented by the plaintiff and noted that no written statement had been filed by the defendants, meaning all the averments in the plaintiff’s plaint were deemed admitted. The Court relied on the fact that the plaintiff’s trademarks, particularly the “LV” mark, were well-known in India, and the defendant’s actions were not only infringing but also amounted to passing off. The Court explained that under the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), the suit could be decreed without trial due to the defendant’s default in appearing or contesting the claims. The Court stated, “The plaint has been duly verified and is also supported by the affidavit of the plaintiff. In view of the fact that no written statement has been filed on behalf of the defendants, all the averments made in the plaint have to be taken to be admitted”. The Court emphasized that the defendants had failed to put forth any plausible defence or justification for using the plaintiff’s trademarks.
Additionally, the court cited the Satya Infrastructure case, which held that in situations where the defendants do not contest the claims, there is no need for further evidence or examination. The court stated, “I fail to fathom any reason for according any additional sanctity to the affidavit by way of examination-in-chief than to the affidavit in support of the plaint or to any exhibit marks being put on the documents which have been filed by the plaintiffs and are already on record”. This confirmed that the evidence already on record sufficed for granting relief.
The Court also remarked that the defendants, despite being aware of the injunction and having entered an appearance, chose not to engage with the proceedings further. The Court highlighted that this indicated their lack of defence on merits. “Since the defendants have failed to take any requisite steps to contest the present suit, despite having suffered an ad interim injunction order, it is evident that the defendant has no defence to put forth on merits”.
The decision of the Court:
The High Court, after considering the facts and contentions of the parties, granted relief in favour of the plaintiff, Louis Vuitton Malletier. The Court issued a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from using the plaintiff’s trademarks, specifically the "LV" mark, and ordered the delivery of all infringing products to the plaintiff. It further directed the defendants to block the e-commerce subdomains and accounts associated with the sale of counterfeit goods. The court also ordered an assessment of the costs incurred by the plaintiff in this litigation, to be determined by the Joint Registrar. The matter was listed for further proceedings before the Joint Registrar to finalize the costs, and a decree sheet was to be drawn up in terms of the reliefs sought by the plaintiff.
Case Title: Louis Vuitton Malletier v. Abdulkhaliq Abdulkader Chamadia & Ors.
Citation: CS(COMM) 700/2023 & I.As. 19479-19480/2023
Coram: Justice Amit Bansal
Advocate for Plaintiff: Adv. Rishika Aggarwal
Advocate for Defendant: None
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
