Levi Strauss & Co. v. Mohd Rafique Alam

CS (COMM) 326/19

Levi Strauss & Co. filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Mohd Rafique Alam and others for illegal use, passing off, and infringement of its trademarks (LEVI'S) and associated designs. The plaintiff asserted that LEVI'S is a globally recognized and well-known trademark in the apparel industry. The court ultimately decreed the suit, granting permanent injunctions and awarding nominal damages.

Jurisdiction
India
Court
Delhi District Court
Case Number
CS (COMM) 326/19
Decision Date
29 April 2023

Practitioner Note

This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in trademark matters before Delhi District Court. Understanding the court's reasoning in Levi Strauss & Co. vs Mohd Rafique Alam is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.

Related Cases

trademarkC.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 155/2024

M/S Rspl Health Private LimitedvsMittal Industrial Corporation & Anr

The Delhi High Court addressed several applications in the trademark dispute between M/S Rspl Health Private Limited and Mittal Industrial Corporation & Anr. While procedural matters like exemption from certified copies were granted, the core petition seeking removal or rectification of the impugned trademark 'SAGAR SUPREME LABEL' was advanced. The court accepted notice and directed all parties to file their replies within specified timelines, setting the stage for a substantive hearing on the alleged deceptive similarity.

trademark24-IAL6967-2021 IN COMIPL6965-2021 WITH LPETN83-2021

Bhavesh Suresh KatariavsKataria Insurance Brokers Pvt. Ltd

The plaintiff, an insurance consultant operating under various names including Kataria Jewellery Insurance Consultancy, sought an ad-interim injunction against the defendant, a private limited company, for using a deceptively similar domain name (www.katariainsurance.co.in) to his established mark. The court found that the similarity was too great and ruled in favor of granting immediate injunctive relief.

trademarkOSA.No.252 of 2018

Rubinetterie Bresciane Bonomi SpavsM/S.Lehry Instrumentation & Valves Pvt. Ltd.

This case involves an Italian company, Rubinetterie Bresciane Bonomi Spa, which filed a suit against M/S.Lehry Instrumentation & Valves Pvt. Ltd. for passing off its trademark and design mark used on brass ball valves. The dispute escalated when the appellant challenged procedural orders passed during the trial process. The Madras High Court ultimately dismissed the appeal, holding that the impugned interlocutory orders did not qualify as 'judgments' under the Letters Patent, thereby rendering the appeals non-maintainable despite the provisions of the Commercial Courts Act.

trademarkCS 285 of 2009

Ajanta Pharma LtdvsUas Pharmaceuticals Pty Ltd & Another

The Calcutta High Court ruled in favor of Ajanta Pharma Ltd in a case involving the trademark 'Sunstop' for sun-screen cream. The court found that Uas Pharmaceuticals Pty Ltd had deliberately attempted to pass off its similar product as belonging to Ajanta, exploiting the plaintiff's established market reputation and substantial sales figures. Consequently, the court granted a decree restraining Defendant No. 1 from continuing this dishonest practice.

trademarknull

Goenkarancho Ekvot, A SocietyvsUnion Of India (Uoi)

The petitioner society filed a writ petition seeking to enforce the Emblems And Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1950, against the use of the name 'Goa' in relation to Gutka and Pan Masala products. The core dispute involved whether the trade mark "Goa 1000 Gutka" infringed state emblems or suggested government patronage.

Arctic Invent — IP Strategy

Facing a trademark dispute?

Arctic's TM litigation team handles ~120 trademark matters per year across India, EU, and UK. From oppositions to infringement actions, we build winning arguments from precedent.

Talk to our TM team →

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.

Strategy Consult

Facing a similar trademark matter?

Arctic's litigation team uses precedent data like this to build winning arguments.

Get a Strategy Call