Delhi High Court Awards Damages To Tommy Hilfiger In Counterfeit Apparel Case Against Kolkata Trader
Delhi High Court Awards Damages To Tommy Hilfiger In Counterfeit Apparel Case Against Kolkata Trader
Introduction
The Delhi High Court has awarded ₹1.5 lakh in damages in favour of Tommy Hilfiger Europe BV after holding that a Kolkata-based trader had engaged in trademark infringement and passing off by supplying counterfeit Tommy Hilfiger products. The Court found that the unauthorised use of well-known registered trademarks misled consumers into believing that the counterfeit goods originated from or were associated with the global fashion brand. The judgment was delivered by Justice Tejas Karia on November 28, 2025.
Factual Background
Tommy Hilfiger Europe BV, a globally recognised lifestyle and fashion brand, instituted a suit seeking permanent injunction, damages and costs against Partha Chatterjee, who carried on business under the name “Denim India” in Kolkata. The plaintiff asserted ownership of several registered trademarks, including “TOMMY HILFIGER”, “TOMMY”, “TOMMY SPORT”, “TOMMY GIRL” and associated logos, which enjoy substantial goodwill and reputation in India and internationally.
In January 2018, the plaintiff discovered that the defendant was supplying counterfeit apparel bearing identical Tommy Hilfiger marks. A physical investigation was conducted and samples of the infringing products were procured, which revealed that the goods were fake and unauthorised.
Procedural Background
The suit was filed before the Delhi High Court in 2018. Despite repeated attempts at service, the defendant failed to appear or file a written statement. In December 2018, the Court granted an ex parte ad-interim injunction restraining the defendant from using the plaintiff’s trademarks.
Given the continued absence of the defendant, the matter proceeded ex parte. The Court considered the pleadings, documentary evidence and submissions made by the plaintiff.
Issues
1. Whether the defendant’s use of the plaintiff’s trademarks amounted to trademark infringement and passing off
2. Whether the plaintiff was entitled to damages and costs in the absence of the defendant
3. What would be the appropriate quantum of damages in the facts of the case
Contentions of the Parties
The plaintiff contended that it was the registered proprietor of the marks in question and had built extensive goodwill through long-standing use, sales and promotion. It argued that the defendant was selling counterfeit goods bearing identical marks without authorisation, thereby deceiving consumers and damaging the plaintiff’s reputation.
The defendant did not appear before the Court and did not file any response. Consequently, the factual assertions made by the plaintiff remained uncontroverted.
Reasoning and Analysis
The Court noted that since the defendant had neither appeared nor filed a written statement, the averments in the plaint and the supporting documents stood admitted. The Court found that the plaintiff had successfully established ownership, validity and prior use of its trademarks.
On examining the evidence, the Court held that the defendant was dealing in identical goods sold through the same trade channels to the same consumer base. The unauthorised use of the plaintiff’s registered marks on counterfeit products amounted to a clear case of trademark infringement and passing off.
The Court observed that the defendant was riding on the goodwill and reputation of Tommy Hilfiger and attempting to falsely project an association with the brand. It emphasised that such conduct not only harmed the plaintiff’s reputation but also deceived consumers into purchasing inferior quality counterfeit goods.
With respect to damages, the Court relied on the principle laid down in Strix Ltd. v. Maharaja Appliances Ltd., holding that notional or punitive damages may be awarded even in the absence of detailed evidence where infringement is clearly established and the defendant chooses to stay away from proceedings.
Decision
The Delhi High Court held that Tommy Hilfiger had made out a clear case of trademark infringement and passing off. The suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiff.
The Court awarded ₹1.5 lakh as damages to the plaintiff and permitted recovery of costs. It further directed that the matter be placed before the Joint Registrar for computation of costs.
Accordingly, the suit was disposed of In this case the plaintiff was represented by Mr. Ashish Somari, Ms. Bhavya Verma & Mr. Chirayu Prahlad, Advocates.
