Delhi High Court: Louis Vuitton successfully enforces rights in its LV (logo) marks

Overview

Recently, in the case of Louis Vuitton Malletier v. Javed Khan & Ors[1], the Delhi High Court decreed the suit in favour of Louis Vuitton Malletier based on Defendants’ statement that they shall not use the abbreviated version ‘LV’ of the ‘LV logo’ and will make a payment of INR 1,00,000 in five equal installments of INR 20,000/- as litigation costs in favor of Louis Vuitton.

Facts and Submissions

The dispute arose when Louis Vuitton Malletier (“the Plaintiff”) found that Defendant No.1, Mr. Javed Khan, a wholesale supplier of footwear and menswear under the business name “Jay Kay Sales”, along with Defendant No.2, Mr. Bilal Khan, a listed entrepreneur on IndiaMart, were found selling footwear bearing the ‘LV Logo’ as well as using the ‘LV Logo’ under the name ‘Lee Vanz’ in the form of buckles on their footwear. The Plaintiff had also found about Defendant No.3, Ashok Kumar, an unknown person/identity based on the concept of John Doe, who was operating an online e-commerce portal with website www.olvikart.com and social media handles like instagram that direct the users to the said website, where it was offering for sale products such as footwear, wrist watches and other accessories bearing the logo as counterfeits.

The Plaintiff in the infringement proceedings before the Court relied on its trade mark registrations in India for the LV marks and asserted that the ‘LOUIS VUITTON’ marks along with its distinctive floral pattern and logos are exclusive to the Plaintiff. The manner of use of the competing marks is set out below:

The Court vide its order dated December 09, 2021 had passed an ex-parte injunction order against the Defendants and directed local commissioners to be appointed to visit the premises of the Defendant Nos.1 and 2. On their visit, the local commissioners seized the goods bearing the ‘LV Logo’. The total seizure effected was to the tune of 343 pairs from the two premises of the Defendants.

The Defendants entered an appearance before the Court and agreed to bring a closure to the dispute with the Plaintiff. The Defendants undertook to pay a total sum of INR 1,00,000/- towards litigation costs and not use the ‘LV Logo’ or any other marks of the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff in return had no objection, if the Defendants used the mark ‘Lee Vanz’ so long as its abbreviated version ‘LV’ of the `LV logo’ is not used. The Defendants’ also agreed to produce the seized goods before the Plaintiff’s counsel so that the ‘LV buckles’ can be removed from the same and the footwear can be returned to the Defendants to be dealt with individually.

CONCLUSION

Consequently, the Court decreed the suit based on the statements made by the parties and Louis Vuitton was able to successfully enforce its rights in its “LV logos” with the court proceedings concluded efficiently and expeditiously.

The present case is yet another example of a quick and efficient dispute resolution mechanism followed by IP Courts in India lately, thereby encouraging the brand owners to freely operate and if required, successfully enforce rights against the counterfeiters with ease.

[1] CS (COMM) 636/2021