Case Study: Louis Vuitton Malletier v. Abdulkhaliq Abdulkader Chamadia & Ors.

Background

In June 2023, Louis Vuitton (LV) discovered that defendants 1 and 2 were selling counterfeit products bearing its well-known ‘LV’ trademarks. A detailed investigation revealed that:

• Defendant 1 operated three multi-storied stores and a warehouse in Surat, Gujarat.
• Defendants 1 and 2 conducted online sales via social media accounts, third-party e-commerce platforms, and a Telegram group.
• The Telegram group guided users to infringing goods listed on e-commerce websites linked to four subdomains under the domain of defendant 3, www.selloship.com.

A test purchase conducted via WhatsApp confirmed the delivery of an infringing product in Delhi, further associating defendants’ WhatsApp number with two Instagram accounts promoting counterfeit LV goods.

Legal Proceedings

On October 5, 2023, the Court granted an ex-parte ad interim injunction restraining the defendants from manufacturing, selling, or dealing in any products bearing the LV marks. Despite being served, the defendants failed to appear or respond, leading to an ex-parte proceeding.

LV sought a decree under Order VIII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), which permits the Court to pronounce judgment when a defendant does not file a written statement.

Analysis by the Court

The Court referred to the precedent in Satya Infrastructure Ltd. v. Satya Infra & Estates Pvt. Ltd., which held that leading ex-parte evidence in such cases would serve no purpose if the plaint is duly verified and supported by affidavit. Key observations included:

1. Admitted Averments: The absence of a written statement meant all averments in the plaint were deemed admitted.

2. Admitted Documents: Defendants did not file an affidavit of admission/denial for documents filed with the plaint, making these documents admissible under Rule 3 of the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018.

3. Trademark Infringement and Passing Off:

o LV established ownership of the registered and well-known ‘LV’ marks.

o Evidence confirmed the defendants' use of counterfeit marks, amounting to trademark infringement and passing off.

o The defendants’ actions demonstrated an attempt to deceive consumers and unfairly capitalize on LV’s goodwill and reputation.

The Court concluded that the suit did not require trial and was fit for decree under Order VIII Rule 10 of CPC.

Decision:

The Court decreed the suit in LV’s favor, ordering:

1. Defendants 1 and 2 to deliver all infringing merchandise seized during the execution of the Local Commission.

2. Defendant 3 to block all subdomains associated with the infringing activities of defendants 1 and 2.

3. LV to appear before the Joint Registrar for determination of litigation costs to be paid by the defendants.

Conclusion:

This case underscores the robust legal protections available to trademark owners in India. By leveraging procedural rules and producing comprehensive evidence, Louis Vuitton successfully enforced its rights against counterfeiters, obtaining injunctions and damages without the need for prolonged litigation.