Sale Of Counterfeit Goods Goes Against Public Interest, May Render Brand Completely Useless: Delhi HC Grants ₹11 Lakh Damages To Woodland
The Delhi High Court has observed that sale of counterfeit goods goes against public interest and may render a trademark or brand completely useless. Justice Prathiba M Singh made the observation while awarding Rs. 11 lakhs to Woodland as damages and costs in a trademark infringement suit against an entity selling counterfeit products using its registered trademark “Woodland.”“Such sale...
The Delhi High Court has observed that sale of counterfeit goods goes against public interest and may render a trademark or brand completely useless.
Justice Prathiba M Singh made the observation while awarding Rs. 11 lakhs to Woodland as damages and costs in a trademark infringement suit against an entity selling counterfeit products using its registered trademark “Woodland.”
“Such sale of counterfeits destroys the market for genuine goods and may render the trade mark and brand itself completely useless as large scale piracy of a brand, reduces the value of the brand. The sale of
such counterfeit goods also goes against public interest,” the court said.
The court observed that the use of the ‘WOODLAND’ mark and logo by the defendant entity on substandard goods not only violates Woodland’s statutory and common law rights but also jeopardizes its brand equity.
Woodland filed the suit against M/s Sahara Belts, an entity based in city’s Sadar Bazar, operated by one Javed Alam. It was alleged that Alam was marketing and selling counterfeit products being belts, belt-buckles and wallets bearing the registered ‘WOODLAND’ mark.
Decreeing the suit in favour of Woodland, the court said that more than 11,000 counterfeit products were seized from the Defendant entity’s premises consisting of wallets, bags, belts, belt-buckles, etc. and that such products cannot be sold in brazen manner.
“Accordingly, the suit is decreed against the Defendant and the Defendant is restrained by way of a permanent injunction from manufacturing, selling, offering for sale, advertising or in any manner selling any products bearing the ‘WOODLAND’ word mark ‘TREE device , ‘WOODLAND’ label or any other mark which is identical or deceptively similar to the Plaintiff’s mark,” the court said.
Title: AERO CLUB v. M/S SAHARA BELTS
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1177