IMPORTANT POINT
The court affirmed the well-known status of the plaintiff's trademarks and granted permanent injunction against defendants for infringement and passing off.

JUDGMENT :

AMIT BANSAL, J. (Oral)

1. The present suit has been filed seeking relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from infringing the trademarks of the plaintiff, passing off their goods and services as that of the plaintiff, and other ancillary reliefs.

PLEADINGS IN THE PLAINT

2. The plaintiff-Louis Vuitton Malletier (“LVM”) is a company that manufactures, sells and distributes high quality clothing, footwear, cosmetics, luggage and fashion accessories for men and women.

3. The plaintiff traces its history to the year 1854 when its eponymic founder, Mr. Louis Vuitton, established its business. Today, the plaintiff is the part of the French Conglomerate, LVMH (Louis Vuitton Moet Hennesey) which owns portfolio of 75 world-famous brands. In 1896, Mr. Vuitton’s son created the highly distinctive logo featuring interlocked string of letters L & V. ‘Louis Vuitton’ has over the time been consistently shortened to “LV” in reference to its business activities.

4. In India, the plaintiff has several registrations for its different trademarks. The earliest registrations for the ‘LV’ marks date back to August 8, 1985. In particular, the plaintiff places reliance on the following registrations for its ‘LV’ marks in India:

The Certificates for use in Legal Proceedings are filed as document no. 4 of the documents filed alongwith the plaint. All the aforesaid registrations remain valid and subsisting.

5. The plaintiff has three exclusive stores in India, the earliest one was opened in 2003 in Oberoi Hotel, New Delhi. Plaintiff’s products bearing the ‘LV’ marks were known in India even in 1900s due to percolation of goodwill. Substantial time, money and resources have been spent towards promotion and advertisement of the products featuring the plaintiff’s ‘LV’ marks and it regularly features in the list of top brand ratings. As a result of the above-mentioned activities undertaken by the plaintiff, it has a brand value of approximately USD 47.2 billion.

6. The plaintiff’s ‘LV’ marks have been declared as ‘Well-Known marks’ in various judgements passed by courts in India. The certified copies of judgments declaring the plaintiff’s trademarks as well-known are filed as document no. 8 of the documents filed alongwith the plaint. Further, the ‘LOUIS VUITTON’ mark is included in the list of ‘Well-Known Marks’ of the Trade Marks Registry of India and the same has been filed as document no. 9 of the documents filed alongwith the plaint.

7. Defendant no.1-Abdulkhaliq Abdulkader Chamadia, doing business as ‘Mr. Shoes’, offers for sale/sells footwear as well as accessories such as sunglasses, wallets, etc. through both offline and online mediums across India, including in Delhi.

8. Defendant no.2-Abdurrub Abdulkader Chamadia, doing business as ‘Mr. Retail’, works in association with the defendant no.1 as its GST number is being used at one of the stores of the defendant no.1.

9. Defendant no.3-Selloship Services LLP is an Indian Limited Liability Partnership that sells sub-domains of www.selloship.comfor purchase so that users can develop their e-commerce websites and sell products, which are shipped nationwide.

10. In June 2023, the plaintiff came across infringing products bearing the plaintiff’s ‘LV’ marks being offered for sale/sold by the defendants no.1 and 2. Through a detailed investigation, the plaintiff learned that the defendant no.1 has been operating through three multi-storied stores and one godown in Surat, Gujarat.

11. The investigation also revealed that the defendants no.1 and 2 conduct online operations through various accounts on social media and third-party e-commerce platforms. The investigation ascertained that the defendant no.1 maintains 2 Instagram handles namely, ‘@mr.shoes_originals’, ‘@mr.shoes.pro.’.

12. For the investigation, a test purchase was made through WhatsApp using the mobile number +918160119669, obtained from “@mr.shoes_originals’ which led to the delivery of an infringing product bearing the plaintiff’s