The subject matter in the case, Lacoste & Anr v Global Impex India CA was the trademark "LACOSTE" and the "Crocodile Device". Lacoste and Anr (Plaintiffs) filed a suit against Global Impex India CA (Defendant) for permanent and mandatory injunction, passing off, infringement of trademark and copyright among other things.
It was alleged by Lacoste that the Defendant had posted T-shirts bearing the trademark "LACOSTE" on their websites "www.alibaba.com" and 'www.ec21.com' for sale. These websites enable buyers and suppliers in international trade to source information about each other. It was further alleged that in addition to the Plaintiffs trademark the Defendants were also offering for sale, products of other known brands like NIKE, HUGO BOSS, RALPH LAUREN, PRADA and BURBERRY.
The Plaintiff also alleged that a detailed investigation into the Defendant's activities in Chennai had revealed that it carried out its business under the name of "M/s. Global Impex India" from an apartment in a residential complex without any name or display board outside the apartment. It was added that the sale of LACOSTE T-shirts by the Defendant was made only to buyers outside India. It was also revealed that the said T-shirts were manufactured on contract basis somewhere in New Delhi. Such activities of the Defendant lead the Plaintiff to allege that irreparable harm and injury had been caused to them as manufacturers and merchants of high quality goods.
On 23.07.2004, the Plaintiffs obtained an exparte order and a local commissioner to visit the Defendants premises and to seize the offending goods. The report of the said Local Commissioner disclosed that two T-shirts bearing the trademark in question were found at the defendant's premises bearing tags that showed that they were manufactured at a New Delhi address. By order dated 29.09.2004, the interim order was made absolute. The defendants who had initially appeared and sought to contest the proceedings, defaulted in defending the suit and were thus proceeded ex parte.
The Court after a perusal of the affidavit submitted by the Plaintiff by way of ex parte evidence found the trademark (LACOSTE) being used by the Defendant identical to that of the Plaintiffs. Moreover, the Plaintiff had been successful in establishing before the Court that they were the owners/licensed users of the said trademark. Also, the Local Commissioner's report clearly pointed out to the use by the defendant, of the LACOSTE mark, on the products and wares found in the said defendant's premises.
The Court thus held that on the basis of the evidence the plaintiffs had established that the defendants had infringed their registered trademark in respect of the product in question.. Such an activity did not have any explanation except that the defendant's actions were deliberate and actuated with mala fide, with the intention of exploiting the Plaintiff's goodwill and reputation to cause confusion and deception in the minds of the public at large. Therefore, permanent injunction was granted in favour of Lacoste and Anr.
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.