Fashion — India Patent Cases
14 decisions indexed
Page 1 of 1 · 14 total
Louis Vuitton Malletier v.Ajay Aggarwal
The plaintiff, Louis Vuitton Malletier, filed a suit alleging that the defendant, Ajay Aggarwal, was manufacturing and selling goods using the deceptively similar trademark/label 'LV'. The court found that the defendant was violating the plaintiff's statutory and common law rights, leading to the decree in favor of the plaintiff.
Christian Louboutin Sas & Anr. v.M/S Italian Shoes Co. & Ors.
In this ongoing intellectual property dispute, Christian Louboutin SAS sought various procedural reliefs in the Delhi High Court against M/S Italian Shoes Co. The court granted several applications, including allowing the plaintiffs to file additional documents and granting exemption from pre-institution mediation due to the suit's urgent nature. Crucially, the order also addressed the core infringement claim, setting up the case for permanent injunctions related to trademark infringement, copyright violation of shoe images, and passing off concerning the signature 'RED SOLE' style.
Rahul Mishra & Anr. v.John Doe & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favor of fashion designer Rahul Mishra, restraining defendants from using or dealing in goods deceptively similar to his registered trademarks and trade names. The court also directed the defendant operating the website www.rahudress.com to immediately suspend the domain name and disclose complete details of the primary infringing entity (Defendant No. 1). This order protects both trademark rights and copyright/design rights related to Mishra's luxury apparel.
Charles And Keith International Pte Ltd v.Ambud Sharma & Anr.
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of the fashion house Charles And Keith, directing the cancellation of a similar trademark registration held by the respondent. The petitioner successfully argued that its established brand 'CHARLES & KEITH' and abbreviation 'C&K' was well-known and used extensively across various classes, including Class 09 for masks. Given the similarity and the petitioner's prior use, the Court cancelled the respondent's mark in Class 09, despite it being filed on a 'proposed to be used' basis.
Hugo Boss Trademark Management Gmbh v.Pawan Sharma
The plaintiff, Hugo Boss Trademark Management Gmbh, filed a suit alleging that the defendant was using identical/similar trademarks ('BOSS HUGO BOSS', 'BOSS', etc.) in relation to clothing and garments, causing confusion. The court found the plaintiff entitled to relief, granting a permanent injunction and awarding damages.
Lacoste S.A. v.Sheetal Fabrics
Lacoste S.A. filed a suit against Sheetal Fabrics alleging infringement of its trademark LACOSTE, passing off, and violation of copyrights in relation to garments and accessories. The court found that the defendant adopted and used trademarks deceptively similar to Lacoste's, causing loss to the plaintiff's reputation.
M/s Lacoste S.A. v.Rakesh Goyal
M/s Lacoste S.A. filed a suit alleging that the defendants were manufacturing and marketing goods using trademarks identical or deceptively similar to its registered marks (LACOSTE and CROCODILE), leading to counterfeiting, passing off, and copyright infringement. The court found the plaintiff's trademark well-known and decreed the suit for permanent injunction and awarded damages.
National Institute of Fashion Technology (NIFT) v.Mc. GAN's Ooty School of Architecture
NIFT filed an arbitration petition challenging an award that favored Mc. Gan's Ooty School of Architecture (Respondent No.1). The dispute centered on Respondent No.1 allegedly violating the MOU by using NIFT's name and logo to solicit students, leading to termination. The court upheld the arbitrator's award, dismissing NIFT's petition.
Tommy Hilfiger Europe Bv v.Ms Originals Clothing And Ors
In this execution petition, Tommy Hilfiger sought to enforce a settlement decree against Ms Originals Clothing for continuing the sale of its branded goods. Despite having previously settled, the Decree Holder alleged that the Judgment Debtors continued infringing on their trademarks both in physical stores and online platforms. The court allowed the application for local commissioners to conduct an investigation into post-decree sales and directed the Judgment Debtors to provide access to relevant financial records.
Shakthi Fashion & Anr. v.Burberry Limited
The Delhi High Court addressed a revision petition challenging the dismissal of an application to reject a plaint based on territorial jurisdiction in a trademark infringement suit. The court examined whether the cause of action had arisen within its jurisdiction, considering both past incidents in Bangalore and ongoing activities in New Delhi. While acknowledging the plaintiff's claims regarding online sales (IndiaMart) and local solicitation in Delhi, the High Court ultimately dismissed the revision petition, stating that the question of territorial jurisdiction is a mixed question of fact and law requiring evidence at trial.
Louis Vuitton Malletier v.Sharmila Lalit Vyas And Anr.
Louis Vuitton Malletier filed an Interim Application seeking an injunction against the Defendants to prevent them from manufacturing, selling, or distributing products featuring the impugned LV mark or deceptively similar marks. The court directed the Applicant/Plaintiff to serve the proceedings on the Defendants before considering any ad-interim relief.
Ampm Fashions Private Limited v.Mr. Akash Anil Mehta, Partner Of Ampm Designs & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed an interim injunction application concerning the use of the 'AMPM' trademark. While the plaintiff asserted its mark was well-known and infringed upon by the defendant's stylized version, the court declined to grant the requested injunction. However, in a compromise, the defendants agreed to prominently display a specific subtitle ('Interior design by Akash Mehta and Poonam Mehta') alongside their impugned mark and submit quarterly turnover accounts to the court.
M/S Reflect Sculpt Private Ltd. v.Musky Couture
The Delhi High Court allowed M/S Reflect Sculpt Private Ltd. to proceed with its suit against Musky Couture, which alleges infringement of the 'GAURAV GUPTA' trademark and copyright in unique artistic garments. The Plaintiff detailed how the Defendant was allegedly manufacturing and selling identical, low-budget imitations while falsely claiming association with the original designer. Crucially, the Court issued a significant interim order allowing a Local Commissioner to conduct a search and seizure of the Defendant's premises in Mumbai to gather evidence of infringement.
Christian Louboutin Sas v.Abubaker & Ors.
Christian Louboutin Sas filed a suit against Abubaker & Ors., alleging trademark infringement and passing off based on its registered mark 'RED SOLE,' which refers to the red color applied to ladies footwear soles. The core dispute centered on whether this specific color shade could be protected as a trademark, especially when the defendants were using their own wordmark 'VERONICA.' The Delhi High Court ultimately dismissed the suit, holding that the use of a single color does not qualify as a trademark under relevant provisions and that Section 30(2)(a) disentitled the plaintiff from claiming infringement or passing off.
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.