Delhi High Court: Louis Vuitton successfully asserts rights to its LV trademarks (logo).

Insight

Recently, in the case of Louis Vuitton Malletier c. Javed Khan & Ors, Delhi High Court ordered a suit in favor of Louis Vuitton Malletier based on the defendants’ statement that they must not use the abbreviated “LV” version of the “LV logo”. and will make a payment of INR 1,00,000 in five equal installments of INR 20,000/- as legal costs in favor of Louis Vuitton.

Facts and Submissions

The dispute arose when Louis Vuitton Malletier (“the Plaintiff”) discovered that Defendant No. 1, Mr. Javed Khan, a wholesale supplier of shoes and men’s clothing under the trade name “Jay Kay Sales”, that Defendant No. 2, Mr. Bilal Khan, an entrepreneur listed on IndiaMart, sold shoes bearing the “LV logo” and used the “LV logo” under the name “Lee Vanz” in the form of buckles on their shoes . Plaintiff had also discovered Defendant #3, Ashok Kumar, an unknown person/identity based on the concept of John Doe, who operated an online e-commerce portal with the website www.olvikart.com and handles of social media like instagram which direct users to said website, where it offered for sale products such as shoes, wristwatches and other accessories bearing the logo as counterfeits.

The plaintiff in the infringement proceedings before the Court relied on his trademark registrations in India for the LV marks and asserted that the trademarks “LOUIS VUITTON” along with its distinctive floral pattern and logos are proprietary to the plaintiff. The mode of use of competing brands is defined below:

The Court saw its order dated 09 December 2021 granted an ex parte injunction order against the defendants and ordered that local commissioners be appointed to visit the premises of defendants Nos. 1 and 2. During their visit, the local commissioners seized the goods bearing the “LV Logo”. The total seizure made was up to 343 pairs in the two premises of the defendants

The defendants appeared in court and agreed to end the dispute with the plaintiff. The defendants agreed to pay a total sum of INR 1,00,000/- for legal costs and not to use the “LV logo” or any other mark of the plaintiff. The plaintiff in return had no objection, if the defendants used the trademark “Lee Vanz” as long as its abbreviated version “LV” of the “LV logo” was not used.. The defendants also agreed to produce the seized goods before plaintiff’s attorney so that the “LV buckles” could be removed and the shoes could be returned to the defendants for individual processing.

CONCLUSION

Therefore, the Court ordered the prosecution on the basis of the declarations made by the parties and Louis Vuitton was able to successfully assert its rights to its “LV logos” with the legal proceedings concluded in an efficient and rapid manner.

The present case is another example of a speedy and effective dispute resolution mechanism followed by intellectual property courts in India in recent times, thereby encouraging trademark owners to operate freely and, if necessary, successfully assert rights against infringers with ease.