Delhi District Court
The Polo Lauren Company Lp vs Polo India on 22 July, 2025
DLST010018652025
IN THE COURT OF MS. SAVITA RAO,
DISTRICT JUDGE (COMMERCIAL COURT)-01
SOUTH DISTRICT, SAKET COURTS: NEW DELHI
IN THE MATTER OF
CS (Comm) No. 65/2025
THE POLO/LAUREN COMPANY L.P
650, Madison Avenue,
New York, U.S.A-10022 ............Plaintiff
Vs.
POLO INDIA
Through its partners Mr. Gaurav Jain
and Sh Yash Jain
Plot-66, Off-5, Floor-Ground,
Vinod Villa, Jagruti Mataji Marg,
Cavel 3rd X Lane, Ramwadi,
Kalbadevi, Mumbai, Maharashtra-400002
Also at:
103, 1st Floor, P.M Park,
Anmol Textile Market,
Anjurphata, Taluka-
Bhiwandi, District-Thane, 421302 .........Defendant
Date of institution : 03.02.2025
Date of final arguments : 14.07.2025
Date of judgment : 22.07.2025
JUDGMENT
1. This is suit under section 134 & 135 of Trade Marks Act 1999 and Section 51 and 55 of Copyright Act 1957 for permanent CS (Comm) No. 65/25 1/15 injunction restraining infringement, passing off, delivery up, rendition of accounts or damages, etc. filed by plaintiff against the defendant on the facts that plaintiff has adopted and started using its trade mark POLO (stylized and word per se) in the year 1967 and has been continuously, extensively, exclusively and without any interruption using the said trade mark ever since. Subsequently, plaintiff adopted and started using the Device of Polo Player in the year 1971, individually and in combination with POLO, POLO formative trademarks as well as other trademarks/words in stylized and artistic manner in relation to its said goods and business in the course of trade. (Hereinafter the marks POLO, POLO RALPH LAUREN, POLO BY RALPH LAUREN, RALPH LAUREN, POLO DENIM, POLO SPORT, , , , , and other formative variants inclusive of the POLO PLAYER device are collectively referred to as 'the said trademarks/labels') It is pertinent to mention herein that the trademarks POLO and POLO PLAYER device remain CS (Comm) No. 65/25 2/15 a key and essential part, amongst others. The said trademarks/labels have all the trappings of an invented mark and as such are extremely strong marks.
2. As submitted, said trademarks/labels of plaintiff including its formative variants are all distinctive marks and are exclusively associated with Plaintiff world over including in India. In order to secure its proprietary rights in its said trademarks/labels and to prevent its misappropriation, dilution and misuse by unauthorized persons, the Plaintiff has applied for and obtained trade mark registrations for its well-known trademarks/labels in various classes, world over, including in India. Plaintiff's trademarks/labels are registered in various countries, including but not limited to, Argentina, Australia, Brazil, China, Croatia, Denmark, France, Germany, Hong Kong, Israel, Italy, Japan, Mexico, New Zealand, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Sweden, Switzerland, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, U.S.A, etc. The mark THE POLO BAR RALPH LAUREN of the Plaintiff is duly registered in the USA under Registration No. 6,335,190 in class 43. An illustrative list depicting the worldwide trademark registrations of the Plaintiff has been filed with the plaint. It is further submitted that plaintiff has been using the said trademarks/ labels in an artistic way, involving distinct emplacement of the color, and artistic features involved therein, comprising of the word POLO and Device of POLO PLAYER in several formative variants. Plaintiff is the owner of the original artwork involved in the said trademarks/labels. Plaintiff has been dealing with its said CS (Comm) No. 65/25 3/15 copyrights in the course of trade in relation to its said goods and business, inter-alia, within the meaning of Section 14 of the Copyright Act, 1957. The Plaintiff has been using its said copyrights extensively, continuously and uninterruptedly in the course of trade. Plaintiff has an extensive global reach and as of March 2021, plaintiff has all over the world approx. 325 factory outlets, 548 retail stores and 650 concession-based shops-within- shop. Plaintiff's said goods are also available through approx. 8824 wholesale distribution channels and 16250 shops-within- shops worldwide. In addition to plaintiff's directly-operated stores and shops, plaintiff operates approximately 72 Ralph Lauren stores/ shops and 143 Club Monaco stores/ shops via various international licensing partners. In India, Aditya Birla Fashions & Retail Ltd. has become licensee of the plaintiff and the plaintiff has its stores located at PRL Emporio; Lux Chanakyapuri; The Chanakya Mall, Chanakyapuri, New Delhi; and PRL Ambience Mall, Gurugram, Haryana. Moreover, in India, the Plaintiff's said goods under the said trademarks/ labels are sold online via many e-commerce platforms such as www.thecollective.in, www.luxe.ajio.com, www.myntra.com etc., that deliver the said goods to every part of the country.
3. As submitted, with the advent of e-commerce, the internet and trade thereunder, the Plaintiff adopted its said trademarks as an essential and material part of its domain names and some of the Plaintiff's domain names are as follows - www.polo.com, www.polo-ralph-lauren.in and www.ralphlauren.com. Whois report pertaining to the said domain names is filed herewith along with the instant suit. It is further submitted that for promoting, advertising and CS (Comm) No. 65/25 4/15 popularizing its said goods and business, plaintiff maintains formidable presence on the internet [all references to the POLO and DEVICE OF POLO PLAYER trademarks/labels/ trade name and 'the said trademarks' shall include the said domain names as well]. The said domain names and the websites running thereon contain extensive information about the said goods and business rendered by plaintiff under its said trademarks/ labels. Plaintiff maintains an active and prominent social media presence on multiple popular platforms such as Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, and YouTube among others. As of 21.05.2024, the Plaintiff Company's Instagram and Facebook page, being operated under the said trademarks/labels has 9.2 million followers and Plaintiff Company's X (Twitter) page, being operated under its said trademarks/labels has 2.2 million followers. As of 21.05.2024 the Plaintiff Company's YouTube page, being operated under the said trademarks/labels has 199K subscribers.
4. On account of, plaintiff's consequent growth as an iconic fashion brand and recognition as one of the world's market leaders in the designing, marketing and distribution of lifestyle products, the Plaintiff has witnessed a phenomenal ever- increasing pattern of sale of its said goods under the said trademarks/ labels. The same is evident from the statement of net revenues for the years 2010-2021 as detailed in plaint. Plaintiff has been diligent in protecting its intellectual property rights and has always taken steps to protect its distinctive and well-known trademarks/labels including the distinctive features 'POLO' and 'DEVICE OF POLO PLAYER'. Plaintiff, in the past, has taken action before various forums against misuse, misappropriation and misrepresentation of its well-known said trademarks/labels CS (Comm) No. 65/25 5/15 by various parties. It is submitted that Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide its judgment dated December 14, 2011 pronounced in the suit titled 'Polo/ Lauren Company v. Rohit Bajaj' - [CS (OS) No. 1763/ 2005], held the said POLO/ RALPH LAUREN/ POLO PLAYER DEVICE trademark to be a "well-known" trademark as envisaged under the provisions of Section 2(1)(zg) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and consequently it is submitted that the same is entitled to maximum protection against all kinds of misuse and misappropriation by any manufacturer, trader or person irrespective of the class of goods or services for which the said trademarks/ labels are registered or used by the Plaintiff.
5. Defendant Polo India through its partners Yash Jain & Gaurav Jain is Partnership firm and is engaged in the business of manufacturing, marketing, trading, shirt, pant, jeans and t- shirts readymade garments included in class 25. Defendant has recently adopted and started using the trademark "P I POLO INDIA/POLO INDIA/ / "
as its trademark in relation to its impugned product/goods and business. As per search conducted in the records of Trade Mark Registry, it was found that defendant had applied for the trademark registration for the mark "P I POLO INDIA/ " under application no. 5279197 in class 25 in their favour. The impugned application was filed by the defendant under no. 5279197 in class 25 on 10/01/2022 with user details as CS (Comm) No. 65/25 6/15 proposed to be used. Plaintiff immediately filed notice of opposition against the impugned application on 03.05.2024. The impugned application due to non- filing of the Counter statement by the Defendant within the prescribed time period has been abandoned vide order dated 11th December, 2024 by the Ld. Registrar of trademarks. Defendant has dishonestly and malafide adopted the impugned trademark/label in relation to impugned goods and business and started using the same in the course of trade. Impugned trademark/label of the defendant is identical with/deceptively similar to the said trademark/label of the plaintiff phonetically, visually, in basic idea and essential feature. Defendant has no right to use the impugned mark/label in any manner in relation to its impugned goods and business whatsoever being in violation of the Plaintiff's statutory and common law rights therein. Plaintiff has not only vast transborder reputation in India under the said trademark/label including the trademark POLO INIDA but also vast physical and online presence of the said goods and business under the said trademark/label. Trade channels of the competing goods/service are also the same.
6. By the defendant's impugned adoption and use, deception and confusion in the market is ensuing or is likely to so ensue. Plaintiff's said trademark/label is otherwise being diluted and eclipsed thereby. Moreover, any person not knowing clearly the relationship between the parties to this action is bound to be confused by the defendant's impugned adoption and use and might well do business with the Plaintiff under the belief that some strong, vital and subtle links exist between the Plaintiff and the defendant. Defendant is cashing in on the hard built CS (Comm) No. 65/25 7/15 reputation and goodwill of the Plaintiff under its said trademark/label and its said goods and business, and thereby attempting to make easy money.
7. As submitted, by the impugned activities the defendant is (i) infringing the said trademark/label of the plaintiff which is registered and has been declared as well known (ii) Passing off and enabling others to pass of their impugned goods and business as that of the Plaintiff and causing misrepresentation and consumer confusion. The defendant is thereby violating the plaintiff's common law rights in the said trademark/label (iii) Infringing the copyright in the artwork of the plaintiff's said trademark/label (iv) Defendant is diluting the plaintiff's said trademark/label and indulging in falsification and unfair and unethical trade practices. Due to defendant's impugned activities, plaintiff is suffering huge losses both in business and in reputation and such losses are incapable of being assessed in monetary terms. Unwary purchasers and trade are being deceived as to the origin of goods and business. Defendant's gains are plaintiff's losses. Plaintiff in the third week of December, 2024 came across the impugned goods of the defendant bearing the impugned trademark POLO INIDA being sold on the e-commerce web-site India Mart which is interactive in nature and orders and enquiries can be placed by any consumer.
8. It is further submitted that on going through the e- commerce website- India Mart, the defendant has provided the Pictures and images of their product displaying as "POLO INDIA/ " while the trademark of the defendant represents a CS (Comm) No. 65/25 8/15 different device that is " /PI POLO INIDA". The Plaintiff's grievance against the Defendant is the use of word POLO INDIA with or without the device and other essential feature of the plaintiff's trademark POLO with or without the device which is causing confusion and deception among the consumers.
9. Photographs of plaintiff's product and defendant's product bearing the plaintiff's trade dress/trademark are also attached with the plaint. As stated, if the defendant is not restrained from continuing the same, plaintiff shall continue to have irreparable losses of business as well as the said act will injure the goodwill of plaintiff's trademarks. Thus, the plaintiff, as stated, is entitled for an immediate order of injunction as well as damages in the suit. Due to the defendant's impugned activities, the plaintiff is suffering huge losses both in business and in reputation and such losses are incapable of being assessed in monetary terms and unwary purchasers and trade are being deceived as to the origin of the said goods or business. Defendant's gains are plaintiff's losses and defendant is liable to render its full account to the plaintiff for ascertainment of profits earned by them and to make good the loss caused by their impugned activities. Without prejudice to the rendition of accounts, and in alternative thereto, defendant is liable to pay damages to the plaintiff, which plaintiff conservatively and in a restricted manner claims to the tune of Rs.3,10,000/- even though the plaintiff is entitled to much more. Instant suit was filed alongwith application U/o 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC r/w section 151 CPC. Coloured photographs of product and packaging/trade CS (Comm) No. 65/25 9/15 dress/colour combination of plaintiff's product and that of defendant were also filed on record.
10. After filing of the suit, vide order dated 04.02.2025, ex-parte ad-interim injunction was granted in favour of plaintiff and against defendant. Due to non-appearance on behalf of defendant, they were proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 21.03.2025.
11. In plaintiff's evidence, Ms. Meena Bansal, AR of plaintiff was examined as PW1 who filed her evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW1/A and relied upon Ex. PW1/1 to Ex. PW1/32.
12. As deposed by PW1, defendant has recently adopted and started using the trademark "P I POLO INDIA/POLO INDIA/POLO INDIA/PI POLO INDIA" as its trademark in relation to its impugned product/goods and business. The defendant has dishonestly and malafide adopted the impugned trademark/label in relation to impugned goods and business and started using the same in the course of trade. Impugned trademark/label of the defendant is identical with/deceptively similar to the said trademark/label of the plaintiff phonetically, visually, in basic idea and essential feature. The word/mark POLO and/or device of Polo or both forms essential part of the impugned trademark/label. Malafide on part of the defendant is apparent on account of the fact that even the artwork/writing style of the word POLO has been copied by the defendant. The defendant has no right to use the impugned mark/label in any manner in relation to its impugned goods and business whatsoever being in violation of the plaintiff's statutory and common law rights therein.
13. As submitted, on going through e-commerce website India Mart, it was noticed that the defendant has provided the pictures CS (Comm) No. 65/25 10/15 and images of their product displaying as "POLO INDIA/POLO INDIA" while the trademark of the defendant represents a different device that is "PI POLO INDIA/PI POLO INDIA". The plaintiff grievances against defendant is that the use of work POLO INDIA with or without the device and other essential feature of the plaintiff's trademark POLO with or without the device which is causing confusion and deception among the consumers. True representation of plaintiff's said trademarks/labels is Ex. PW1/1; True representation of defendant's impugned trademarks/labels and defendant's impugned products is Ex. PW1/2; comparison chart of the plaintiff's said mark and the defendant impugned label is Ex. PW1/3. Impugned trademark/label of the defendant is identical with/deceptively similar to the said trademark/label of the plaintiff phonetically, visually, in basic idea and essential feature. Printout of the status page and Registration certificate and other document of the trademark application no. 1277784 in class 25 for the trademark POLO of the plaintiff is Ex. PW1/4; Printout of the status page and registration certificate and other document of the trademark application no. 674207 in class 25 for the trademark POLO RALPHLAYREN of the plaintiff is Ex. PW1/5; Printout of the status page and registration certificate and other document of the trademark application no. 674214 in class 25 for the trademark POLO BY RALPH LAUREN of the plaintiff is Ex. PW1/6; Printouts of the status page and registration certificate and other document of the trademark application no. 811560 in class 25 for the trademark RLX POLO SPORT (LABEL) of the plaintiff, application no. 1277785 in class 25 for the trademark POLO JEANS CO. (DEVICE) of the plaintiff, trademark application no. 1698411 in class 25 for the trademark POLO CS (Comm) No. 65/25 11/15 LOGO DEVICE of the plaintiff, trademark application no. 489215 in class 25 for the trademark POLO DEVICE of the plaintiff are Ex. PW1/7 to Ex. PW1/10; Copy of Trademark Registration Certificate in class 43 bearing the trademark "THE POLO BAR RALPH LAUREN" in USA is Ex. PW1/13; Computer generated List of Registrations of the Trademark /Label of the plaintiff in other classes is Ex. PW1/14; Copy of the Legal Proceedings Certificate bearing the plaintiffs trademark/label is Ex. PW1/15; Copy of documents, advertisements, awards, articles etc. showing the use of the plaintiff's trademark/label worldwide including India is Ex. PW1/16; Screenshots showing the exclusive stores of the plaintiff company within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court is Ex. PW1/17;
14. Vide order dated 04.02.2025, Local Commissioner was appointed, who visited the premises of the defendant on 17.02.2025 and met Sh. Yash Jain, who claimed to be partner of "POLO INDIA". According to L.C report, upon careful inspection, documents such as order forms, details of outstanding payments, visiting cards, envelopes and transport receipts bearing the name 'POLO INDIA' in writing, stamping or printing were found lying on the floor and inside a carton box. The documents were seized and sealed in a big transparent polybag. Inventory list of the seized documents were prepared and the seized documents were returned to Sh. Yash Jain on superdari. Sh. Yash Jain submitted that they are no longer using 'POLO INDIA' and are not selling any product under this name.
15. Testimony of PW1 has remained unrebutted, uncontroverted, and unchallenged for the failure of defendant to file any written statement and to contest the matter. The averments made in the CS (Comm) No. 65/25 12/15 plaint and affidavit of evidence are duly substantiated by documents on record. This court does not find any reason to disbelieve the version of the plaintiff and the averments made in the plaint supported by the documents on record and the report of Local Commissioner. From perusal of documents on record, it is apparent that the defendant had been using the trademark "P I POLO INDIA/POLO INDIA/POLO INDIA/PI POLO INDIA" as its trademark in relation to its impugned product/goods and business. The impugned goods of defendant are identical to the goods/services of the plaintiff under the said trademark/label. The defendant has adopted and started using the impugned mark/label dishonestly, fraudulently and out of greed with a view to take advantage and to trade upon the established goodwill, reputation and proprietary rights of the plaintiff in its said trademark/label. The adoption and use of the impugned mark/label by the defendant is disseminating confusion and deception and the defendant is thereby riding on the vast goodwill and reputation of the plaintiff under the said trademark/label.
16. As regards rendition of accounts of profits earned by the defendant, no document/material has been placed on record by the plaintiff. Hence, no order in this respect is passed. However, in alternative, plaintiff has claimed damages to the tune of Rs. 3,10,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Ten Thousand Only). Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court deems it appropriate to grant damages in sum of Rs. 2,00,000/-. Local Commissioner was appointed and Rs. 1,00,000/- was incurred by plaintiff towards fees of Local Commissioner, besides other expenses for execution of Local Commission. Court fee was filed CS (Comm) No. 65/25 13/15 in sum of Rs. 5,600/-. Considering the above, plaintiff is awarded aggregated sum of Rs. 3,50,000/- as damages and litigation cost.
Relief :-
17. Instant suit is accordingly decreed with cost (inclusive of the cost incurred for payment to Local Commissioners) in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant, thereby:
(i) defendant is restrained by itself as also through its partners, agents, representatives, distributors, assigns, licensees, heirs, successors, stockists and all others acting for and on its behalf from using, selling, soliciting, manufacturing, marketing, displaying, advertising or by any other mode or manner dealing in course of trade in the physical or online market place including by way of export and import, the impugned trademark/label/tradename "P I POLO INDIA/POLO INDIA/POLO INDIA/PI POLO INDIA" or any other trademark/label identical with or deceiptively similar to the plaintiff's said trademark/label/tradename wherein word POLO with or without the device of POLO forms essential part in relation to the impugned goods and business of shirt pant, jeans and T-
shirts redymade garments, included in class 25 and allied/cognate and related goods thereto and from doing any other acts or deed amouting to or likely to infringement of plaintiff's registered Trade Marks as detailed above; infringement of the copyright in the artwork of plaintiff's said trademark/label; passing off and enabling others to pass off their goods and business as that of the plaintiff by use of the impugned trademark/label; indulging in dilution, falsification and unfair and unethical trade practices.
(ii) Defendants are further directed to pay an amount of Rs. 3,50,000/- (Rs. Three Lakhs Fifty Thousand Only) to the plaintiff towards damages and litigation cost.
CS (Comm) No. 65/25 14/1518. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. After completion of formalities, files be consigned to record room.
Digitally
signed by
savita savita rao
Announced in the open Court rao
Date:
2025.07.22
14:50:40
on 22nd Day of July 2025 +0530
(Savita Rao)
District Judge (Commercial Courts)-01,
South District/Saket Courts,
New Delhi
CS (Comm) No. 65/25 15/15