$~9

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Date of Decision: 24^th March, 2022

+

CS (COMM) 657/2021 & I.A. 16736/2021

LEVI STRAUSS AND CO.

..... Plaintiff

Through:

Mr. Dushyant K. Mahant, Mr. Urfee

Roomi and Mr. Vishesh Kumar,

Advocates. (M:9811600017)

versus

IMPERIAL ONLINE SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED

& ORS.

..... Defendants

Through:

Ms. Shilpa Gamnani, Advocate.

CORAM:

JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH

Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)

1.

This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

2. The present suit seeking permanent injunction restraining trademark

infringement, copyright infringement, passing off of trademark and other

reliefs has been filed by the Plaintiff - Levi Strauss & Co. In the suit, the

Plaintiff seeks protection of its stitching design, which is known as ‘Arcuate

Stitching Design’ mark. The said mark, as per the Plaintiff, was adopted in

1873 and is used on all the textiles including denim jeans, which are

manufactured and sold by the Plaintiff. The said mark is as extracted below:

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/001222

3. The grievance of the Plaintiff is that the Defendants were also selling

denim jeans with the identical ‘Arcuate Stitching Design’ mark through the

website www.urbanofashion.com and other e-commerce platforms. The

Plaintiff found the products with the infringing mark on various e-commerce

platforms

including

amazon.in,

flipkart.com,

nykaafashion.com,

myntra.com, snapdeal.com, limeroad.com and paytmmall.com. The mark

used by the Defendants is depicted below:

4.

The Plaintiff had issued notices to the Defendants. Out of the

Defendants impleaded in the present case, the Defendant Nos.2 to 5 are the

directors of Defendant No.1 company. In response to the notices which were

issued by the Plaintiff, the Defendants through their counsels had executed

undertakings on 16th February, 2021. In the said undertakings, the

Defendants acknowledged the sole and exclusive rights of the Plaintiff in the

‘Arcuate Stitching Design’ mark. The Defendants also undertook that within

six months from the date of undertakings, i.e., 15^th August, 2021, all the

infringing products would be removed and no further manufacturing,

distribution, or sale of good including jeans shall be undertaken by the

Defendants with the infringing mark or stitching design similar to Plaintiff’s

mark. The relevant extracts of the undertaking dated 16^th February, 2021 are

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/001222

set out below:

Annexure A);

Annexure B under its own brand names,

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/001222

trademark shown in Annexure A;”

5.

However, it is the submission of the ld. counsel for the Plaintiff that

despite giving the undertaking, the Defendants continued to manufacture

and offer for sale the said denim jeans with the Plaintiff’s ‘Arcuate Stitching

Design’ mark, which has led to filing of the present suit by the Plaintiff.

6.

Vide order dated 22^nd December, 2021, this Court had granted ad-

interim injunction in terms of paragraphs (a) and (b) of the prayer in the

application, which reads as under:

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/001222

(a) and (b) in this application”

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/001222

7.

Post the Defendants being served, written statement has been filed by

them. In the written statement, it is explained that an initial extension of six

months was sought for disposal of the stock, however, the same could not be

diligently adhered to due to the pandemic period and lockdowns associated

thereto. The relevant paragraphs read:

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/001222

Trade Marks Act, 1999 (Act).

11. The Defendant states that it has not sold

any products bearing the Arcuate Stitching

Design Trademark after 15 Octo