Delhi High Court Permanently Restrains Two Businessmen From Infringing Trademark Of French Luxury Brand Louis Vuitton

Louis Vuitton stated that it conducted an investigation which revealed that the defendants use a telegram group where listings of infringing are posted regularly and such listing guides the users to e-commerce websites. It said that these e-commerce websites are established and maintained by using sub-domain of Selloship Services LLP's (defendant no. 3) main domain.

The high court noted that on October 5, 2023, the Court had issued an ex-parte ad interim injunction restraining the defendants from manufacturing, selling, importing or exporting products bearing the LV marks. The court said that the plaint had been duly verified and is also supported by the affidavit of the plaintiff. Noting that since no written statement had been filed on behalf of the defendants, the court observed that all the averments made in the plaint have to be taken to be admitted.

"Further, since no affidavit of admission/denial has been filed on behalf of the defendants in respect of the documents filed with the plaint, in terms of Rule 3 of the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules 2018, the same are deemed to have been admitted. Therefore, in my opinion this suit does not merit trial and the suit is capable of being decreed in terms of Order VIII Rule 10 of CPC," the court said. 

It invoked Order VIII Rule 10 CPC, which empowers the court to pronounce judgment against a party if no written statement has been filed by the party within the required time.

“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," it added. 

The Court observed that the photographs of the products sold by the defendants and screenshots of the social media platforms and websites operated by them indicate that they are selling counterfeit products. It held that the defendant nos. 1 and 2 engaged in infringement and passing off of Louis Vuitton's trademarks.

The Court stated that the defendants took unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of the LV marks and deceived consumers by dishonestly adopting the trademark.

It thus issued a permanent injunction against defendant nos.1 and 2 and passed a decree of delivery, requiring the defendants to deliver all infringing products that were seized during the execution of the Local Commission.

The Court also directed defendant no.3 to block all the sub domains used by the defendant nos.1 and 2.

It further asked the representatives of Louis Vuitton to appear before the Joint Registrar for determination of the actual costs incurred by it for litigation.

Case title: Louis Vuitton Malletier v/s Abdulkhaliq Abdulkader Chamadia & Ors

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1278