Delhi High Court Roundup: CREED Wins Trademark Suit, Court Laments 38-Year Will Dispute, and Foreign National's Plea Dismissed

In a series of significant rulings, the Delhi High Court has delivered key judgments spanning intellectual property rights, the chronic issue of judicial delay, and the limits of writ jurisdiction in customs matters. A decisive order granted luxury perfume brand CREED a permanent injunction and substantial damages against a former distributor, while another ruling brought a 38-year-old probate case to a close with poignant remarks on systemic delays. A third case saw the dismissal of a foreign national's plea challenging his 2018 arrest for alleged gold smuggling.

---

CREED Secures Permanent Injunction and Over Rs 45 Lakh in Damages and Costs

In a robust affirmation of trademark rights and contractual obligations, the Delhi High Court has granted a permanent injunction in favour of Fontaine Limited, the owner of the luxury perfume brand CREED. The Court restrained a former distributor, Berkeley Beauty Brands Ltd., from selling or otherwise dealing in CREED products following the termination of their distribution agreement.

A single-judge bench of Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, allowing Fontaine's application for a summary judgment, also awarded damages of Rs 37.42 lakh and legal costs amounting to Rs 7.97 lakh. The ruling underscores the judiciary's willingness to grant swift, decisive relief in clear-cut cases of trademark infringement without necessitating a full trial.

Background of the Dispute

The case, Fontaine Limited v. Berkeley Beauty Brands Ltd. , originated from a distribution agreement that expired in August 2022. Under the terms of the contract, Berkeley, which operated the exclusive CREED store at Chanakya Mall in New Delhi, was obligated to cease all use of the CREED trademark and return any unsold stock and promotional materials upon the agreement's conclusion.

Fontaine Limited, which acquired the global rights to the brand in 2020, alleged that Berkeley failed to comply with these post-termination obligations. Instead, the distributor purportedly continued to sell CREED products through its retail store and other unauthorized channels, thereby infringing on Fontaine's registered trademarks and breaching the defunct agreement.

To substantiate its claims, Fontaine secured the appointment of a Local Commissioner, who inspected Berkeley's premises in August 2023. The Commissioner’s report proved pivotal, confirming the presence of CREED-branded materials, packaging, and an inventory list detailing unsold products, thereby corroborating Fontaine's allegations of continued unauthorized association with the brand.

The Court's Rationale for Summary Judgment

Justice Arora's decision to grant a summary judgment hinged on the principles laid out in Order XIII-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The Court leaned on the precedent set in Su-Kam Power Systems Ltd. v. Kunwer Sachdev , which delineates the conditions for granting such a judgment. The key takeaway from the precedent is that summary relief is appropriate where the court determines that the “defending party has no real prospect of successfully contesting the claim” and that there is “no compelling reason for the matter to proceed to oral evidence.”

In the present case, the court found Berkeley's position untenable. The combination of an expired agreement with clear post-termination clauses and the Local Commissioner's findings presented a scenario where the defendant had no plausible defence. The continued use of the CREED trademark and sale of its products after the contractual relationship had ended constituted a clear infringement, leaving no triable issue that would warrant protracted litigation.

This judgment serves as a critical reminder to distributors and franchisees of the stringent legal obligations that survive the termination of commercial agreements. It also highlights the efficacy of summary judgments as a tool for rightsholders to efficiently combat unambiguous instances of trademark infringement and contractual breach, saving valuable judicial time and resources.

---

"Friction in Wheels of Justice": Court Decries 38-Year Delay in Will Dispute

In a starkly different matter, the High Court disposed of a probate case that had languished in the judicial system for nearly four decades. The case, V. Prabha & Ors. v. State & Ors. , filed in 1987, became a platform for the Court to reflect on the debilitating impact of judicial delays.

Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, in granting the letters of administration, remarked that the case exemplifies the “friction” in the wheels of justice , a concern previously flagged by the Supreme Court in Yashpal Jain v. Sushila Devi and Others (2023) . The plea, originally for probate, was filed by the sole executrix of a will executed by Raja Pratap Bhan Prakash Singh. It was contested by the testator's widow and children, who alleged suspicious circumstances, including the testator's medical condition, undue influence, and the exclusion of natural heirs.

Observing that most of the original parties had passed away during the litigation, Justice Kaurav noted, “Such delay not only clogs the justice delivery system, but also drags the parties into protracted litigation.” He attributed the delay to various factors, including the conduct of the parties, and emphasized the shared responsibility of the Bar, the Bench, and litigants in upholding the integrity of the justice delivery system.

The Court meticulously examined the respondents' claims of suspicious circumstances and found them unsubstantiated. A key finding was that the exclusion of natural heirs was not, in itself, a suspicious circumstance. The judgment highlighted that “the mere fact that the natural legal heirs had been excluded from inheritance in the Will cannot be deemed to be suspicious, especially in light of the averments in the Will which give a detailed explanation for such exclusion.” The testator had explicitly recorded in the will the matrimonial discord and his disaffectionate relationship with his children as the reasons for their disinheritance.

By granting the letters of administration, the Court not only brought closure to a long-pending case but also provided important jurisprudence on the evaluation of wills, particularly concerning the disinheritance of close relatives.

---

Court Refuses to Entertain Foreign National's Plea on Alleged Illegal Arrest

In a third matter, a division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain dismissed a writ petition filed by a Turkmenistan national, Myratgeldi Mammedov, who alleged he was illegally arrested by the Indian Customs Department in a 2018 gold smuggling case.

The petitioner contended that the value of the gold seized from him was below the Rs 50 lakh threshold for arrest. However, the Customs Department alleged he was part of a group of 22 passengers from whom a total of 15,560 grams of gold, valued at Rs 4.46 crores, was seized.

The Court noted several deficiencies in the petitioner's case. Crucially, the pleadings contained no averments regarding the alleged illegal arrest; these submissions were made only orally. Furthermore, an order for the confiscation of the jewellery and imposition of a penalty was passed in May 2018, which the petitioner never challenged.

The bench refused to interfere, stating, “At this stage, in these facts, the Court is also not inclined to allow any challenge to the said Order-in-Original. The said order does not warrant any interference.” The Court also inspected the seized gold chain and concurred with the customs officials that it could not be classified as a 'personal effect'. This ruling reinforces the principle that writ jurisdiction will not be exercised where alternative remedies have not been pursued in a timely manner and where foundational claims are not properly pleaded.