Delhi HC: Difference in Layout is of No Consequence if Essential Feature of Trademark Infringed  ||  Allahabad HC: Parliament has Responsibility to Restrain Criminals from Entering Into Politics  ||  Delhi HC Refuses to Vacate Stay on Direction to Enforce CM's Speech Promising Rent Relief  ||  J&K&L HC: Judges Must Refrain from Making Derogatory Remarks Against Parties  ||  Delhi HC: Courts Should be Sensitive When Poor And Deprived Knock at its Doors  ||  CESTAT: Law Does Not Mandate Customs Broker to Physically Verify Address of Client  ||  Orissa HC: Appeal Can’t be Dismissed on Sole Ground of Non-Submission of Certified Order  ||  ITAT: Deposit of Banned Notes Received Out of Cash Sales During Demonetization Period is Valid  ||  ITAT: Arrangement Between Spouse Without Real Money Exchange Not Amount to Unexplained Investment  ||  ITAT: 100% Deduction U/S 80IC of IT Act allowable when Industry undergone Substantial Expansion    

Louis Vuitton v. Gaurav Bhatia and Ors. - (High Court of Delhi) (23 May 2017)

Damages have to be actual and not superfluous, Courts are not supposed to do guess work and grant damages


Intellectual Property Rights

Present suit has been filed by Plaintiff seeking permanent injunction against Defendants, restraining them from infringing its trademark, copyright and also from passing off goods of Plaintiff as that of theirs and for rendition of accounts and damages. It is submitted that, act of Defendant offering counterfeit products of Plaintiff which are identical to product of Plaintiff amounts to infringement of its trademark.

Suit has been filed by a duly authorized person. Various documents showing registration of trademark in favour of Plaintiff proves that, Plaintiff is registered owner of trademark Louis Vuitton and logo "Toile Monogram" pattern. Documents on record also conclusively show that, Defendants 1 and 2 have been indulging into supply of counterfeit products of Plaintiff and for that purpose, two FIRs have already been registered. Fact that, they were arrested and remained in judicial custody clearly proves that, Defendants have infringed trademark of plaintiff and also copyright which vest in Plaintiff and is also indulging into business of passing off counterfeit goods as that of Plaintiffs.

There is no doubt that, Plaintiff is entitled for damages because Defendants have infringed his trademark and copyright and has been selling counterfeit products of Plaintiff and has, therefore, caused losses not only in goodwill and reputation, but also financial. However, there is no evidence on record to ascertain actual damages suffered by Plaintiff. Courts are not supposed to do guess work and grant damages for losses suffered by Plaintiff. Damages have to be actual and not superfluous.

Defendants, their partners, officers, servants, agents, distributors, stockists and representatives from manufacturing, selling and offering for sale, advertising, are restrained from directly or indirectly dealing in wallets, handbags, suitcases, luggage, purses, belts, footwear, jewellery or any other goods bearing the plaintiffs trademark "Louis Vuitton" or logo or the "Toile Monogram" pattern. Defendants are also restrained from using the domain name and directed to remove the said website from ISP. Defendants are also directed to render accounts of profit earned by them. However, no damages are granted.


Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2022 - All Rights Reserved