Skip to main content

Punitive Damages for Infringement of Trade Dress by Delhi High Court in an Interim Application

By

Delhi High Court vide its Judgement dated 31st July 2018 in Louboutin-3 case has granted permanent injunction and punitive damages against a Delhi based retailer for infringing the famed ‘Red Sole’ trademark of Christian Loubutin. 


The Plaintiff‟s "RED SOLE" trademark, i.e. , wherein a specific tone of colour red (Pantone no. 18.1663TP) is applied to the outsole of a shoe, is unique in its own accord and became known in the world of fashion only after being introduced by the Plaintiff herein as their Trade Dress. The consumers in India identify the Plaintiff as the sole proprietor of the Christian Louboutin trademarks including the "RED SOLE" trademark and any use of the said trademarks by an unrelated entity will entail taking undue advantage of the reputation and goodwill of the Plaintiff, which has been built painstakingly over the several decades;

The Defendants are located in Kamla Nagar Market, New Delhi, who were found to be dealing in infringing and counterfeit shoes bearing the RED SOLE trademark of the Plaintiff.

Beside Injunction on using the said Red Sole for the Defendant shoe, the defendants are also liable to pay punitive damages for the obvious and willful infringement of the Plaintiffs‟ Trademark/Trade Dress for its contemptuous conduct.


HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YOGESH KHANNA ordered as follows: "Given facts and circumstances of this case where the defendants reclused themselves from the proceedings, cannot be permitted to enjoy the benefits of evasion or covert priorities as has been using the domain websites and have been infringing the plaintiffs‟ trademark certainly makes the defendants liable to pay the damages to the plaintiffs. Hence, a decree for a sum of 20.00 Lac in favour of the plaintiffs and against defendants, is also passed on account of infringing the registered marks, trade dress and violating interim order. The plaintiffs shall also be entitled to interest @ 10% pa on the damages so awarded from the date of filing of the suit till the date of realisation."



Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

IPAB has allowed an appeal and granted patent to Pfizer for Tofacitinib and its salts

By
                                                    In a decision dated 21st August 2020 IPAB vide its  Order  has allowed an appeal and granted Patent  to Appellant M/s. PFIZER PRODUCTS INC., USA  for Tofacitinib and its salts. The appeal is against the   order dated 3 rd  September 2015 passed by the Controller of Patents under Section 15 of the Indian Patents Act, whereby the Appellant’s Indian patent application no. 00991/MUMNP/2003 was rejected on the ground that it is hit by section 13(1)(b) and being non-patentable under section 3(d). The Appellant requested for an urgent hearing of the matter and IPAB considered the request for urgent hearing and passed the present order.  This Patent application claimed the compound 3-{(3R,4R)-4-Methyl-3-[methyl-(7H-pyrrolo[2,3-d]pyrimidin-4-yl)-amino]-piper...
Post a Comment
Read more

Tata's Herbal Tea fails to get patent protection

By
The patent office has refused to grant a patent to Tata Global Beverages (formerly known as Tata Tea) for its 'invention' regarding a process for preparation of flavoured herbal tea. Based on the opposition filed by Hindustan Unilever Limited (HUL) and TATA Tea failed to provide sufficiency of disclosure of the invention the Controller of Patents refused to grant patent.   Tata Global  Beverages, the patent application has claimed a new flavoured herbal tea composition comprising 1% to 8% of Darjeeling Broken, 10% to 50% of flavour concentrate and the rest being tea particles. Tata Global Beverages had submitted the patent filing without appropriate clarification for the unique taste for the tea composition. It was unable to find out the technical advancement of the application as compared to the existing knowledge. Thus controller had to refuse the grant of patent. Source:  http://www.financialexpress.com/article/markets/commodities/tata-global-bev...
Post a Comment
Read more

Honourable Justice Manmohan Singh Tenure as Chairman of IPAB (Intellectual Property Appellate Board) extended for Another three months

By
  The Supreme Court on September 16, 2020 has extended the tenure of Honourable Justice Manmohan Singh as Chairman of IPAB (Intellectual Property Appellate Board)  for another three months.  Justice Manmohan Singh was appointed on July 2017 for a term of three years.  However as per the rules governing the appointment his term would come to an end on attaining retirement age of 65 years on 22nd September 2019. Since Government has not appointed any Chairman thereafter, on a Petition by International Association for Protection of Intellectual Property (AIPPI) the Supreme Court has extended his term for another year i.e, till 21st September 2020 as the Petitioner claimed that IPAB will be Defunct with his retirement thereby causing hardship several litigants. The Central Government has notified in March 2020 that Justice Singh will continue as the chairman of IPAB up to September 21, 2020, or until further orders, whichever is earlier.  Now with this extension, Ho...
Post a Comment
Read more