Tommy Hilfiger Europe Bv v. Ms Originals Clothing And Ors

EX.P. 35/2022 (arising from CS(COMM) 298/2021)

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.

Jurisdiction
India
Court
Delhi High Court - Orders
Case Number
EX.P. 35/2022 (arising from CS(COMM) 298/2021)
Judge(s)
Prathiba M. Singh

Practitioner Note

This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in trademark matters before Delhi High Court - Orders. Understanding the court's reasoning in Tommy Hilfiger Europe Bv vs Ms Originals Clothing And Ors is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.

Related Cases

trademarkCS(OS) 1069/2008

Oriental Cuisines Private Ltd.vsStar Restaurants Private Ltd.

The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Oriental Cuisines Private Ltd., granting a permanent injunction against Star Restaurants Private Ltd. for passing off and trademark infringement. The court found that the defendant's use of the identical mark, 'THE NOODLE HOUSE,' for similar hospitality services was likely to confuse consumers and dilute the plaintiff's established goodwill. While the suit was decreed regarding the injunction, the court declined to award damages due to insufficient evidence regarding the duration of the infringement.

trademarkAIR1927ALL81

Swadeshi Mills Co., Ltd.vsJuggi Lal, Kamlapat Cotton Spinning And ...

The Allahabad High Court ruled in favor of Swadeshi Mills Co., Ltd., finding that the plaintiffs had successfully established a reputation for their cotton goods under the trade name 'kamalchap' through continuous use of specific lotus flower designs and impressions. The court granted a perpetual injunction against the defendants, restraining them from using colorable imitations of the marks. Furthermore, the defendants were ordered to remove all infringing marks from their stock and pay substantial damages to the plaintiffs.

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.

trademarkCS(COMM) 222/2017

Paramount Surgimed LimitedvsParamount Bed India Private Limited & Ors

The Delhi High Court set aside an earlier ex-parte injunction granted in favor of Paramount Surgimed Limited. The court found that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case, noting that the plaintiff was aware of the defendant's use of the 'PARAMOUNT' mark since 2009 and had not adequately demonstrated its use in the hospital bed sector. Given the established business operations of the defendants, the balance of convenience lay in their favor, allowing them to continue their trade.

trademarkGA 3382 of 2016 (CS 252 of 2016)

ITC LtdvsIrinjalakuda Town Co-Operative Bank Ltd & Ors.

ITC Ltd filed a composite suit against Irinjalakuda Town Co-Operative Bank, alleging infringement and passing off due to the bank's use of 'ITC' as an abbreviation in its name. The respondents sought revocation of leave under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent, primarily arguing that the court lacked jurisdiction because no part of the cause of action arose within Calcutta. However, the High Court found that a true reading of the plaint showed the suit was maintainable and granted leave to proceed with both claims jointly.

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