CS(OS) 90/2006 Page 1 of 4 *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS(OS) 90/2006 % Date of decision: 6th May, 2009 LOUIS VUITTON MALLETIER ….… Plaintiff Through: Mr. Shravan Chopra, Advocate Versus ABDUL SALIM & ORS. ....... Defendants Through: Ex-parte CORAM :- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW 1. Whether reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No 2. To be referred to the reporter or not? No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported No in the Digest? RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J. 1. This suit has been filed for protection of rights in the trademark “Louis Vuitton”, trademark/logo “LV” and the “Toile monogram” design. 2. The plaintiff as the registered proprietor of the aforesaid marks/logo/monogram seeks order against the defendant No. 1 carrying on business as defendant No. 2 from selling, offering for sale, advertising or dealing in hand bags, wallets luggage, footwear, leather and imitation of leather and goods bearing the aforesaid trademarks/logo/monogram. The cause of action for the suit was the import by the said defendants of counterfeit goods of the plaintiff bearing the aforesaid trademarks/logo/monogram. Injunction is also claimed restraining the said defendants from importing the aforesaid goods bearing the trademarks/logo/monogram of the plaintiff and CS(OS) 90/2006 Page 2 of 4 from passing off the same as plaintiff’s goods. The relief of delivery and of rendition of accounts and damages is also claimed. It is the case of the plaintiff that the Deputy Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai had seized the contents of a container which had arrived at Mumbai on 7th October, 2005, for the reasons of containing counterfeit goods of well known brands including of the plaintiff. The plaintiff on investigation found amongst the seized goods its counterfeit goods also. The Deputy Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai has been impleaded as the defendant No. 3 in the suit. In the application for interim relief direction was sought against the defendant No. 3 for directing him to deliver the goods of the plaintiff. 3. The defendant No. 3 did not appear in spite of service. The defendants No. 1 & 2 were reported to have left the address given in the plaint. The plaintiff furnished their fresh address. They could not be served there also. They were ultimately ordered to be served by publication and were so served. Neither of the defendants appeared and were proceeded against ex parte. 4. The plaintiff has led its ex parte evident. 5. The plaintiff has proved due institution of the suit and signing and verification of the plaint; of the plaintiff being the originator of the trademarks/logo/monogram with respect whereto the suit has been filed, the use thereof as a trade mark since 1854, 1890, 1896 and 2003 respectively; of the plaintiff also being the owner of the artistic work of the monogram/logo; of the presence of the plaintiff in India, of the plaintiff carrying on business within the jurisdiction of this Court so as to sue the defendants even though at Mumbai in CS(OS) 90/2006 Page 3 of 4 this Court; of the registration of its trademarks/logo/monogram; of the defendants No. 1 & 2 illegally importing counterfeit goods of the plaintiff and trading in the same and passing them off as goods of the plaintiff and of the losses suffered by the plaintiff owing to such action of the defendants No. 1 & 2. The evidence of the plaintiff remains unrebutted. 6. The marks of the plaintiff are undoubtedly well known, transcending borders and known/recognized by all who are connoisseur of such goods. The defendants No. 1 & 2 are proved to be illegally importing counterfeit goods of the plaintiff and infringing the registered trademarks/logo/monogram of the plaintiff. The defendants are not entitled to do so and the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for permanent injunction in terms of para 28 (a) & (b) of the plaint. Though the plaintiff had as aforesaid claimed interim order of delivery against the defendant No. 3 but vide ex parte order dated 17th January, 2006 only the defendants No. 1 & 2 were restrained from importing the counterfeit goods or from infringing the registered trademarks/logo/monogram of the plaintiff and from passing off their goods as that of the plaintiff. If the goods seized by the defendant No. 3 and found to be counterfeit goods of the plaintiff are still in existence, the defendant No. 3 is also directed to deliver the same to the plaintiff who shall be entitled to destroy the same. The actions of the defendants No. 1 & 2 are also found to have caused damage to the plaintiff. The defendants by remaining ex parte cannot avoid liability in damages. However the plaintiff having not proved the length of time for which the defendants No. 1 & 2 have been carrying on the said business of selling counterfeit goods of the plaintiff and the volume of the said trade of the defendants No. CS(OS) 90/2006 Page 4 of 4 1 & 2, nominal damages in the sum of Rs. 2 lacs are awarded to the plaintiff. A decree for damages in the said amount is passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants No. 1 & 2 jointly and severally. Decree sheet be drawn up. 7. The plaintiff shall also be entitled to costs of the suit from the defendants. Counsel fee is assessed at Rs. 50,000/-. RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW (JUDGE) May 06, 2009 rb