Gucci granted permanent injunction by Delhi Court in trademark infringement case
Guccio Gucci (plaintiff) is a company incorporated under the laws of Italy and one of the world’s leading luxury fashion brands, designing, developing, selling, and marketing mainly leather goods, footwear, socks, apparel, eyewear, perfumes, watches, and jewelry. Plaintiff sells its products in various countries, including India, USA, Italy, UK, Singapore, Thailand, Hong Kong, France, Germany, Philippines, Spain, Canada, Indonesia, and Malaysia. Plaintiff has many trademark registrations relating to the mark “GUCCI” and its green and red stripes logo in India.
The trademark has been adopted by the company’s founder in the year 1921 and registered in 1980. Plaintiff has got its trademark registered in various countries, including India. On the other hand, the defendant, i.e., Intiyaz Sheikh, is engaged in manufacturing and trading/ selling socks, tags/labels material having “green and red stripes” logo under the mark “GUCCI.” In the first week of April 2019, representatives of the plaintiff found that defendant was manufacturing, stocking and offering large quantities of counterfeit products including socks and packaging material under the plaintiff’s well-known ‘green and red stripes’ logo and the mark ‘GUCCI’.
The plaintiff has filed the present suit to restrain the defendant by decree of permanent injunction restraining from infringing the trademark and copyright of the plaintiff. An application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC read with Section 151 of CPC for issuance of ad-interim ex- parte injunction. The plaintiff also filed another application under Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC to appoint a local commissioner. The local Commissioner was appointed to visit the defendants’ premises, confiscate all such infringing material being manufactured by the defendant, and inspect the books of accounts/ inventories and other documents.
Ex parte ad – interim injunction order, vide order dated 24.04.2019, passed against the defendant and its agents restraining them from selling, advertising, or marketing its products under the mark “GUCCI.” The Ld. Local Commissioner was appointed to seize all such infringing material at the premises, and accordingly report was also submitted before the Court.
The copy of Court’s order and affidavit filed by the plaintiff has been delivered to the defendant, but none appear before the Court. On 05.08.2020, the plaintiff relying on the observations of the case Glaxosmithkline v. Theoder Lab Pvt. Ltd.[1], to permit ex-parte evidence without the physical appearance of the witness. Plaintiff has given evidence supported by documents including pictures of plaintiff’s products and registration of its trademark and logo in various countries, including India.
Also read: Tommy Hilfiger files trademark infringement suit for protection of clothing products
Thus, on 27.08.2021, Court passed a decree of permanent injunction in favor of the plaintiff and directed the defendant to hand over the infringed material/ goods to the plaintiff for destruction/erasion, etc. The Court has also directed the defendant to pay Rs. 2,00,000 as damages to the plaintiff, relying on the judgment in Christian Louboutin Vs. Ashish Bansal[2], where the Court awarded damages when the party deliberately chose to stay away from the proceedings of the Court. Also, the plaintiff was entitled to Rs. 1,66,000 as court fees to be paid by the defendant.
[1] 2006 (32) PTC 629 (Del)
[2] 2018VIIAD(Delhi) 125
Author: Kashish Maheshwari, student at Vivekananda Institute of Professional Studies
Disclaimer: This brief is intended to provide general guidance to the subject matter. It does not contain legal advice. For any specific advice/corrections, write to [email protected]
© ZEST IP
