The Court established the plaintiff's trademarks as well-known marks under the Trade Marks Act, 1999, and granted a decree for permanent injunction based on the exclusive association of the trademarks with the plaintiff's products.

JUDGMENT :

Manmohan Singh, J.

The plaintiff has filed the present suit for permanent injunction restraining infringement of registered trademarks, passing off, dilution, tarnishment, damages and delivery up against the defendants.

2. By order dated 30th August, 2013 this Court had passed an ex parte ad interim injunction in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants restraining them from manufacturing, selling and/or offering for sale, advertising, directly or indirectly dealing in wallets, handbags, purses, belts and other goods etc. bearing the trademarks of the plaintiff or any deceptively variant thereof amounting to infringement of plaintiff's trademarks, copyright and passing off.

3. The defendants entered into appearance and filed their written statement on 13th May, 2014 to which the plaintiff filed its replication on 29th January, 2015. The process of admission and denial of documents was completed on 13th April, 2015 though no documents were filed by the defendants.

4. When the matter was listed before this Court for further proceedings, counsel for the defendants had reaffirmed his statement that let a decree for permanent injunction be passed except for damages and costs. The matter was discussed in the Court. Counsel for the plaintiff foregoes the said reliefs including relief of damages but presses for the relief of costs.

5. Brief facts of the case as per plaint are that the plaintiff is a company duly incorporated and existing under the laws of France. The name "Louis Vuitton" as the name of a company was used for the first time in the year 1854 and is derived from the name of its founder, Mr. Louis Vuitton. Apart from being the trading style of the plaintiff, the name "Louis Vuitton" has also been used as a trademark ever since 1854 and is associated exclusively with goods of the plaintiff's manufacture.

6. The plaintiff is the originator of the mark "Louis Vuitton" which is neither a common surname nor has a dictionary meaning and thus, has all the trappings and characteristics of an invented word. Thus, the name "Louis Vuitton" is the exclusive property of the plaintiff and has become a source identifier for the plaintiff's products.

7. It is stated that in addition to the use of the name "Louis Vuitton" as a trademark, the initials of Louis Vuitton namely "LV", represented in an intertwined manner has also been used as a trademark by the plaintiff since 1890 which appears on a number of the plaintiff's products and the mark has become a signature symbol of the plaintiff. A representation of this trademark has been given herein below:--

IMAGE

8. It is stated that since 1896, the plaintiff has also continuously and uninterruptedly used a canvas design with a flower pattern and the intertwined initials of Louis Vuitton (LV). The said pattern is exclusively associated as an emblematic symbol of the House of Louis Vuitton. The first trademark application for this pattern was filed in the year 1905. This design is known as the "Toile Monogram".

The "Louis Vuitton" word mark, the "LV" logo and the monogram pattern (the latter two being graphic marks) are registered in India in classes 3, 14, 18 and 25 under the Registration Nos. 441451, 448229B, 441452B, 448230B, 448231, 441453B, 448233B, 448235, 448234 and 861145 the details of which have been provided in Annexure A. A representation of Toile Monogram has been given herein below:--

IMAGE

9. It is averred that by virtue of having coined the trademark "Louis Vuitton" and devised the "LV" logo and the "Toile Monogram" and due to priority in adoption, long and continuous use and extensive sale and advertising, the said trademarks have come to connote the goods of the plaintiff.

10. It is further averred that the adoption and extensive use of these trademarks has led to an association of the said trademarks as source identifiers of the products of the plaintiff. The use of the said trademarks or any trademarks similar to the said trademarks, by any entity without the consen