The Delhi High Court in the case of Louis Vuitton Malletier
v. Atul Jaggi & Anr., awarded permanent injunction in
favour of Louis Vuitton (Plaintiff) thereby restraining Atul Jaggi
(the Defendants) from selling any product bearing the
"LOUIS VUITTON" mark or any other mark
deceptively or confusingly similar to it. Louis Vuitton also
claimed an order for delivery up of all finished and unfinished
materials and accessories, packaging, labels, dies, blocks and
other material bearing any of the Louis Vuitton trademarks or
bearing any other mark(s)/logo/device similar thereto for the
purpose of erasure/destruction.
The plaintiff is the proprietor of the registered trademark
"LOUIS VUITTON" in respect of accessories and
variety of leather goods. The mark "LOUIS
VUITTON" was coined and has been in use since 1890 and as
such, the mark is distinctive and has acquired a worldwide
reputation. It was alleged by the Plaintiff that the proprietors of
one "Purse Collection" and
"M/s, Purse Emporium" with their shops
in Karol Bagh, New Delhi had indulged in trademark infringement in
similar kinds of goods that were using the "Louis
Vuitton" brand or mark.
Previously, the Delhi High Court had directed an ex-parte ad
interim injunction in favour of the Plaintiff. In that case it was
claimed by Plaintiff that it is a company incorporated under the
laws of France and that the name "Louis Vuitton"
was derived from the name of its founder, who started creating
leather luggage, bags and accessories in Paris from 1954, and had
since then gained immense popularity owing to the flawless
craftsmanship of the company. It was further claimed that in 1987,
Louis Vuitton became part of the Moet Henenssy Louis Vuitton (LVMH)
Group, which possesses a vast portfolio of around 50 prestigious
brands in the world of fashion.
The Plaintiff contended that in addition to the use of the name
"Louis Vuitton" as a trademark, the initials of
Louis Vuitton, namely "LV", represented in an
intertwined manner had also been used as a trademark by the
plaintiff since 1890. Jewellery bearing "LV"
logo, Toile Monogram and Murakami Monogram sold by the Plaintiff
are well known as originating from them and enjoy substantial
goodwill and reputation in the market. Louis Vuitton is the first
foreign company permitted to set up its own duty free outlets in
India . The word mark "Louis Vuitton", the
"LV" logo and the monogram patterns, are all
registered in India under classes 3,14,18,25 with the registrar of
The Plaintiff's alleged that the Defendants were
involved in counterfeiting the plaintiff's products. Such
products, sold by the defendants bore the plaintiff's
exclusive trademarks, "Louis Vuitton", the
"LV" logo, and the Toile Monogram pattern. The
fact that the defendants stocked large quantities of products with
infringing marks in their outlets meant that they were engaging in
infringing activities. The Plaintiff's supported this claim
with the photographs of the counterfeit items purchased by the
plaintiff's representative, from the defendant's
outlets. The Court had opined that the plaintiff had made out a
prima facie case, and if ad interim relief was not granted,
restraining the defendants from the use of the similar trademark as
that of the plaintiff, serious prejudice and harm would be caused
to it. The balance of convenience too, was in favour of
After considering the background of the case the Delhi High
Court, accordingly passed an order for permanent injunction .The
Court also appointed a local commissioner who's report
confirmed the infringing activity of the defendants. The Court
further directed the defendants to destroy the goods seized by the
local commissioner on a date to be intimated to the plaintiff in
its presence or in the presence of the plaintiff's
representative. The Defendants were also directed to bear the
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
This article enunciates the recent, much awaited, and landmark judgment delivered on September 16, 2016 by Hon'ble Delhi High Court throwing light on the important provisions of the Copyright Act, 1962.
Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion recently issued an office memorandum pursuant to receiving representations from various stakeholders for guidance with respect to the applicability of the provisions of Section 31D of the Copyright Act, 1957.
An Invention Disclosure Form is the documentation of the invention. This is a means to document particulars of your invention and submitting it to the patent attorney who is filing your patent application.
The Patents Act 1970, along with the Patents Rules 1972, came into force on 20th April 1972, replacing the Indian Patents and Designs Act 1911. The Patents Act was largely based on the recommendations of the Ayyangar Committee Report headed by Justice N. Rajagopala Ayyangar. One of the recommendations was the allowance of only process patents with regard to inventions relating to drugs, medicines, food and chemicals.
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).