Short Summary
Levi Strauss And Co., the globally renowned owner of the LEVI'S trademark and associated logos including the Two Horse design, BATWING designs, and Arcuate Stitching Design, filed a commercial suit seeking summary judgment under Order XIII-A of the CPC against three defendants for trademark infringement and passing off. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants were manufacturing, selling, and marketing counterfeit garments bearing the plaintiff's registered trademarks. The court, finding irrefutable and unrebutted evidence of infringement and likelihood of consumer confusion, allowed the application and decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff, granting a permanent injunction and damages.
Detailed Summary
The plaintiff, Levi Strauss And Co., a company incorporated in California, USA, filed CS (COMM) No. 693/2023 through its constituted attorney before the District Judge (Commercial Court)-01, Patiala House Court, New Delhi, seeking summary judgment under Order XIII-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 against defendants Mr. Promod Yadav, Nistar Ansari, and Ishrar Khan. The plaintiff is the registered proprietor of the well-known LEVI'S trademark, the Two Horse logo, BATWING designs (Nos. 1 and 2), and the Arcuate Stitching Design, with operations dating back to 1873 when it patented the world's first blue jeans. The plaintiff has a strong retail and distribution network in India, having ventured into the Indian youth segment in 1994, and operates in 110 countries globally. The plaintiff's trademarks are registered under the Trade Marks Act, 1999, and are valid and subsisting.
The plaintiff alleged that the defendants were engaged in manufacturing, marketing, selling, and dealing in counterfeit garments and related goods bearing the LEVI'S trademark and associated logos, thereby infringing the plaintiff's registered trademarks and passing off their goods as those of the plaintiff. The plaintiff sought reliefs including a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from using the impugned marks, delivery up of all infringing materials, damages of Rs. 3,01,000/-, compensatory/punitive damages, and costs of the proceedings.
The defendants failed to appear or contest the suit despite service, leading the plaintiff to seek summary judgment. The court examined the pleadings and documentary evidence placed on record by the plaintiff, including trademark registration certificates, evidence of the plaintiff's global reputation, and proof of the defendants' infringing activities. The court relied on Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, which provides that a registered trademark is infringed when a person uses, in the course of trade, a mark identical or deceptively similar to the registered trademark in relation to goods or services in respect of which the trademark is registered. The court also referenced the Supreme Court's decision in Laxmikant V. Patel vs. Chetanbhat Shah & Anr., emphasizing that a competitor initiating sale of goods under an identical or imitating name causes injury to the business of the prior user and that honesty and fair play are basic policies in the world of business. Further reliance was placed on Parle Products (P) Ltd. vs. J.P. and Co., Mysore, where the Supreme Court held that marks are remembered by general impressions rather than photographic recollection, making likelihood of confusion a critical factor. The court also noted the principle from Century Traders v. Roshan Lal Duggar Co. that a trader acquires a right of property in a distinctive mark merely by using it upon or in connection with his goods.
The court observed that both parties were engaged in the same business, making the likelihood of confusion very high. It found irrefutable evidence that the defendants were dealing with counterfeit goods bearing the plaintiff's registered trademarks and logos, and that such infringement, if left unchecked, would harm consumers who might purchase counterfeit products believing them to be genuine LEVI'S products. The court also noted that the confusion and deception would be aggravated by online transactions and the availability of counterfeit goods on e-platforms. Accordingly, the court allowed the application under Order XIII-A of the CPC and decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants, granting the reliefs of permanent injunction and damages as sought in paragraph 38(a) and (d) of the plaint.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before Delhi District Court. Understanding the court's reasoning in Levi Strauss And Co. vs Mr. Promod Yadav & Ors. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
The North Face Apparel CorpvsController of Patents and Designs
The North Face Apparel Corp challenged the Controller of Patents' refusal of its patent application (No. 202147026139) titled 'Systems and Methods for End-to-End Article Management' before the Madras High Court under Section 117A of the Patents Act, 1970. The Controller had rejected the application citing lack of inventive step over prior art documents D21-D24. The Court held that the Controller erred by dissecting the claims into isolated elements rather than assessing the invention as a whole, and overlooked the use of spectrophotometer and invisible markers for tracking the manufacturing process, which were not disclosed in the cited prior art. The appeal was allowed and the Controller was directed to grant the patent.
Aventose Energy Private LimitedvsThe Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs, Patent Office Chennai
Aventose Energy Private Limited appealed under Section 117A of the Patents Act, 1970 against the refusal of its patent application (No. 202141019671) for a 'System and Method for Operating Automobiles with an Electric Drivetrain' featuring safe mode activation upon fault detection. The Madras High Court found that the Assistant Controller had contradicted the First Examination Report (which accepted novelty) by subsequently holding the invention lacked novelty without giving the applicant an opportunity to be heard. The court further held that the Controller improperly conflated novelty with inventive step under Section 2(1)(ja) and failed to properly analyze the claims against prior art documents D1–D4.
Apex Laboratories Pvt LtdvsElder Lifescience and Ambico Ayurvedic Health Care
Apex Laboratories Pvt Ltd, the prior adopter and registered proprietor of the trademark ZINCOVIT (TM No. 487453 in Class 5) since 1988, sought interim injunction against Elder Lifescience and Ambico Ayurvedic Health Care for using the deceptively similar mark NEO ZINCOVIT. The applicant also claimed copyright infringement of its registered artistic works (A-108878/2014) covering colour scheme, get-up, and layout. The Madras High Court was satisfied that the respondents were attempting to piggyback on the applicant's goodwill and granted interim injunctions on all three applications covering trademark infringement, copyright infringement, and passing off.
Radico Khaitan LimitedvsPicadilly Agro Industries Limited
This Special Leave Petition arose from a judgment dated 29-05-2026 in CS No. 8/2025 passed by the District Judge, Karnal, Haryana, concerning a trademark dispute over the marks 'Cashmere' and 'Kashmyr' used in relation to beer and vodka. The Supreme Court noted that a First Appeal (FAO-COM-11-2026) was already pending before the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, listed for 28.10.2026. The Court disposed of the SLP without adjudicating it on merits, requesting the High Court to pass an appropriate order regarding the ad interim injunction on the scheduled date.
Maharaja Agrasen Technical Educational Society (Regd.)vsMaharaja Agrasen Himalayan Garhwal University
The plaintiff, Maharaja Agrasen Technical Educational Society, filed a suit for permanent injunction against the defendant, Maharaja Agrasen Himalayan Garhwal University, alleging infringement and passing off regarding the use of the words 'Maharaja Agrasen' in the defendant's name. The Delhi High Court had previously granted a restraint order on 10.07.2026. During the pendency of the suit, the parties arrived at a settlement dated 14.09.2026, under which the defendant agreed to change its name through a statutory amendment while being permitted limited transitional use of its existing name. The court recorded the settlement, modified the interim order accordingly, and listed the matter for compliance reporting on 13.07.2027.
Varahi Diamonds And Finance LimitedvsSahil Vinay Mehra Trading As Mehra Sons Jewellers & Anr.
This is a commercial suit filed by Varahi Diamonds And Finance Limited against Sahil Vinay Mehra Trading As Mehra Sons Jewellers & Anr. before the Delhi High Court. The order is primarily procedural, dealing with the registration of the plaint, issuance of summons, directions for filing pleadings, and an interim injunction application. The matter was referred to mediation, with parties directed to appear before the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre.
Dealing with a patent challenge?
Whether it's a Section 3(d) rejection, a post-grant opposition, or a FRAND dispute, Arctic's patent litigation team has handled it. Get a strategy call.
Disclaimer: This page contains an automated summary based on publicly available judicial records. The content is generated for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Always verify details against the original source judgment before relying on this information for any legal purpose. If you believe any information is inaccurate, please contact us.