Delhi District Court
Polo/Lauren Company vs Alok Shankar on 26 May, 2026
IN THE COURT OF MS. PRABH DEEP KAUR, DISTRICT
JUDGE-05, SOUTH EAST DISTRICT, SAKET COURTS,
NEW DELHI
TM No. 1484/16
CNR NO. DLSE01-007599-2016
The Polo/ Lauren Company L.P.
650, Madison Avenue,
New York, N.Y. 10022, U.S.A
Through
Constituted Attorney Ms. Surbhi Bansal,
96, Sukhdev Vihar, Mathura Road,
New Delhi -110025 .....Plaintiff
VERSUS
1. Mr. Alok Shankar,
603, R.G. Trade Tower,
Netaji Subhash Place, Pitampura,
New Delhi-110034
2. M/s Shankar Televentures
603, R.G. Trade Towers,
Netaji Subhash Place, Pitampura,
New Delhi -110032
3. Naaptol Online Shopping Pvt. Ltd.
Number 11, Conopus,
Kabra Galaxy Star-I CHS,
Brahmand, Azad Nagar,
Thane West, Maharashtra-400607 .....Defendants
Date of Institution : 03.02.2014
Arguments heard on : 20.05.2026
Date of Judgment : 26.05.2026
SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION, RESTRAINING
INFRINGEMENT, PASSING OFF, DELIVERY UP AND
RENDITION OF ACCOUNTS
Digitally signed
PRABH by PRABH DEEP
DEEP KAUR
Date: 2026.05.26
KAUR 21:41:36 +0530
TM No. 1484/16 Page No. 1 of 26
Polo Lauren Company Vs. Alok Shankar & Ors. Dated 26.05.2026
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this judgment, the suit for permanent injunction, restraining infringement, passing off, delivery up and rendition of account against the defendants, has been disposed of.
2. Plaintiff's version as per averments in the plaint :-
The case of the plaintiff as set out in the plaint in nutshell is that Plaintiff is engaged in the business of manufacture, distribution and sale of a wide range of apparel & clothing for men, women and children more broadly menswear, womenswear, childrenswear, clothing accessories, hats, leather goods, shoes, furs, luggage and luxurious home decor including, towels, area rugs, wall covering and tabletop and table coverings sportswear, footer, fragrances, eyewear, fashion accessories, house wares, jewelery, and other allied/related products. (hereinafter referred to as the said goods and business).
It has been averred that ever since its bonafide adoption of the Trade Mark POLO in the year 1967, the Plaintiff has subsequently been using the formative POLO marks word per se and in stylized manner in conjunction with other marks/words and device of polo player [hereinafter collectively referred to as the said Trade Mark/Label] in relation to its said goods and business in the course of Trade. In addition to word per se user of the said Trade Mark POLO, the Plaintiff, over a period of time has been using its formative trade mark in conjunction with other words/marks in various stylized and artistic formats with and/or without the device of polo player, which have been created and are being created over a period of time, viz: POLO, POLO BY RALPH LAUREN, POLO RALPH LAUREN, POLO DENIM, Digitally signed by PRABH PRABH DEEP KAUR DEEP KAUR Date: 2026.05.26 21:41:42 +0530 TM No. 1484/16 Page No. 2 of 26 Polo Lauren Company Vs. Alok Shankar & Ors. Dated 26.05.2026 POLO GOLF, POLO JEANS CO., POLO SPORTS, RALF LAUREN, RALF BY RALF LAUREN, RUGBY RALF LAUREN, LAUREN BY RALF LAUREN, RALF LAUREN GOLF and Polo Player Device etc. The art works involved in the Plaintiff's said Trade Mark/Label/Trade Name are original artistic works and the Plaintiff is the owner and proprietor of the Copyright therein. That the Plaintiff Company has the exclusive rights to deal with the said Trade Mark/Label/Trade Name and has been so dealing with them 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 said Trade Mark/Label/Trade Name of the Plaintiff is enforceable within the ambit of the Copyright Act 1957 as well as by virtue of India's membership to the Berne Convention, the Universal Copyright Convention and the International Copyright Order 1991. The details of the adoption and expansion of the said Trade Mark/Label/Trade Name has been detailed as herein below:-
(a). In the year 1967, the said Trade Mark POLO has been conceived/adopted and created by Mr. Ralph Lauren, a Jewish Sales Man, in relation to neckwear. In the year 1968 the predecessor of the Plaintiff namely Polo Fashions, Inc was incorporated by Mr. Ralph Lauren in order to promote its said Trade Mark in relation to its said goods. Subsequently its name was changed to Polo/Ralph Lauren Corporation in 1987.
Currently, the name of the Plaintiff is The Polo/Lauren Company L.P. PRABH Digitally signed by PRABH DEEP DEEP KAUR Date: 2026.05.26 KAUR 21:41:46 +0530 TM No. 1484/16 Page No. 3 of 26 Polo Lauren Company Vs. Alok Shankar & Ors. Dated 26.05.2026
(b) In the year 1970, the Plaintiff received the coveted Coty Award for menswear. In a rare move, the Plaintiff then began designing clothes for women as well as for men under the said Trade Mark. The first designs-men's dress shirts cut for women- met with great success in 1971, and soon sales topped $10 million.
(c). In 1971, the Plaintiff launched its first women's collection and his first stand-alone store in Beverly Hills, California. Ten years later, in 1981, the brand went global with its first international store on London's New Bond Street. The Polo Sport line was introduced in 1993. The company went public in 1997.
(d). By 2007, the Plaintiff had over 35 boutiques in the United States. The Plaintiff now produces clothing, accessories, fragrances, furniture, and operates the restaurant RL in Chicago. As of 2009, the Plaintiff and/ or their licensing partners operated 163 full-price and 163 outlet/factory stores around the world, including Club Monaco and Rugby stores. The Plaintiff's flagship store is located in the former Rhinelander Mansion on Madison Avenue in New York City. Other major Plaintiff's stores are located in Chicago, East Hampton, London, Miami, Milan, Palm Beach, and Tokyo.
(e) In the year 2000, the Plaintiff's official web site and online shop were launched as www.polo.com by RL Media, a co- operation between the Plaintiff and NBC. In 2007, Ralph Lauren acquired the NBC share of RL Media and the web site was re launched as www.ralphlauren.com. Besides the afore mentioned domain name, the Plaintiff has also got other domains name registered in its favour, viz: www.polo-ralph-lauren.in, www.pologolf.in, www.prl.in, www.global.polo.com. Digitally signed by PRABH PRABH DEEP KAUR DEEP KAUR Date: 2026.05.26 21:41:50 +0530 TM No. 1484/16 Page No. 4 of 26 Polo Lauren Company Vs. Alok Shankar & Ors. Dated 26.05.2026 The said domain name/website visits from thousands of people looking for information on the plaintiff's innumerable and wide spectrum of goods and business. The plaintiff is using the said domain name not only to display its said products under the said Trade Mark/Label/Trade Name but is also using it as a tool to carry out its business there under.
The said domain name of the plaintiff interactive in nature. The Plaintiff has been using the said Domain name in course of trade and as proprietor thereof globally in relation to its said goods and business and has built up a valuable trade, goodwill and reputation there under.
In the year 1967, the Plaintiff has started its said business activity under the said Mark POLO. By passage of time, the Plaintiff expanded to include various formative brands. Initially the Plaintiff commenced its said business in relation to neckwear. By passage of time, the Plaintiff expanded its business activity into various kinds of goods, details whereof have been herein below:
1967: Neckwear.
1978: Boys clothing, Colonge, Various fragrances and related Body care products.
1981: Girlswear.
1982: Luggage and Eyeglasses including other allied products. 1983: Home Furnishings including other allied products. 1994: Shoe, furs, underwear, apparel for newborn, infant and toddlers including other allied products.
It has also been averred that in order to secure the statutory right in the said Trade Mark/Label, the Plaintiff has aiso applied PRABH Digitally signed by PRABH DEEP DEEP KAUR Date: 2026.05.26 KAUR 21:41:55 +0530 TM No. 1484/16 Page No. 5 of 26 Polo Lauren Company Vs. Alok Shankar & Ors. Dated 26.05.2026 for and obtained the various Trade Marks registration pertaining to its said Trade Mark/Label in world, including in India. In some of the plaintiff's registrations, there is disclaimer condition to the exclusive use of the word POLO. However, the plaintiff has various other registrations for the POLO formative Trade Marks. Besides this, the tremendous user, goodwill and reputation of the said Trade Mark/Label, the said disclaimer condition does not affect the right of the Plaintiff. The adoption of the said Trade Mark/Label/Trade Name, the plaintiff has been honestly & bonafidely, continuously, commercially, openly, exclusively and to the exclusion of others, uninterruptedly and in the course of trade and as proprietor thereof using its said Trade Mark/Label/Trade Name as trade marks in relation to its said goods and business and carrying on its said goods and business there under and has built up a worldwide and globally valuable trade, goodwill and reputation there under and acquired proprietary rights therein.
Plaintiff has regularly and continuously been promoting its said distinctive Trade Mark/Label/Trade Name and the goods and business thereunder through extensive advertisements, publicity, promotions and marketing & marketing research and the Plaintiff has been spending enormous amounts of moneys, efforts, and time thereon. The plaintiff also been getting its said products manufactured through its various licenses. The plaintiff to claims to be the owner and proprietor of that all its products whether in house produced or licensed. The products of the plaintiff are available in almost all parts of the world which is inclusive of India and other countries. The plaintiff maintains the Digitally signed PRABH by PRABH DEEP KAUR DEEP Date:
2026.05.26 KAUR +0530 21:41:59 TM No. 1484/16 Page No. 6 of 26 Polo Lauren Company Vs. Alok Shankar & Ors. Dated 26.05.2026 highest standard of quality in relation to its goods and business under the said Trade Mark/ Label/Trade Name.
It has also been averred that defendant no.1 Mr. Alok Shankar, 603, R.G. Trade Tower, Netaji Subhash Place, Pitampura, New Delhi -110034, Defendant No.2- M/s Shankar Televentures, 603, R.G. Trade Towers, Netaji Subhash Place, Pitampura, New Delhi - 110032 are engaged in the same trade and business as that of the plaintiff and Defendant No.3-Naaptol Online Shopping Private Limited, Number 11, Conopus, Kabra Galaxy Star-I, CHS, Brahmand, Azad Nagar, Thane West, Maharashtra - 400607 is online B2B marketplace connecting buyers with suppliers. To the best of the plaintiff's knowledge, the Defendants are acting in collusion and connivance with each other.
Defendants have adopted and started using the Trade Marks NEW JERSEY POLO CLUB WITH/WITHOUT DEVICE OF POLO PLAYER in relation to their impugned goods and have been using the same individually or in combination of each other in logo/label form. The Defendants are giving false trade description to their impugned goods. Specimens of Defendants' impugned goods bearing the impugned Trade Mark/Label are filed herewith. In fact the Defendants are indulging in counterfeiting the impugned goods, which are in complete violation of Plaintiff's statutory and common law right in the said Trade Mark/Label/Trade Name/Domain Name.
The impugned Trade Marks/Labels adopted and being used by the Defendants in relation to their impugned goods and business are identical with and deceptively similar to the Plaintiff's said Trade Mark/Label/Trade Name/Domain Name in PRABH Digitally signed by PRABH DEEP KAUR DEEP KAUR Date: 2026.05.26 21:42:03 +0530 TM No. 1484/16 Page No. 7 of 26 Polo Lauren Company Vs. Alok Shankar & Ors. Dated 26.05.2026 each and every respect including phonetically, visually, structurally, in its basic idea and in its essential features.
Defendants are not the proprietor of the impugned trade marks/label and have adopted and are so using the same in relation to their impugned goods and business and are otherwise dealing with it in the course of trade without the leave and license of the plaintiff. The defendants have nor rights to use it in any manner. The plaintiffs said trade mark/label/trade name/domain name has a strong and wide reputation including in India. By virtue of operation of section 29 of the Trade Marks Act 1999 also, the impugned activities of the defendants under then impugned products do amount to infringement of the plaintiff's registered trade marks.
The products in question are same / similar in nature having same classes of customer and same trade channel. The Defendants' impugned adoption and user thereof are tainted at inception and is a pirate use of the Plaintiff's said Trade Mark/Label/Trade Name/Domain Name.
By the Defendants' impugned adoption and use, deception and confusion in the market is ensuing or is likely to so ensue. The Plaintiff's said trade mark is otherwise being diluted and eclipsed thereby. Any person not knowing clearly the relationship between the parties to this action is bound to be confused by the Defendants' impugned adoption and use and might do business with the Defendants thinking that he is dealing with the Plaintiff or that some strong, vital and subtle links exist between the Plaintiff and the Defendants.
Digitally signed PRABH by PRABH DEEP DEEP KAUR Date: 2026.05.26 KAUR 21:42:07 +0530 TM No. 1484/16 Page No. 8 of 26 Polo Lauren Company Vs. Alok Shankar & Ors. Dated 26.05.2026
Due to the Defendants' 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. Unwary purchasers and trade are being deceived as to the origin of goods or business. The Defendants' gains are Plaintiff's losses. The Plaintiff has no access to the Defendants' accounts and the Defendants are liable to render their accounts to the Plaintiff and to make good to the Plaintiff, the profits and business earned by them.
It has been recently come to the notice that Defendant No. 3, through its impugned website, is conducting its impugned business of the impugned goods and is unauthorizedly and without the express leave and license of the Plaintiff using the impunged mark.
Plaintiff came to know about the impugned products of the Defendants in New Delhi through the advertisement of the defendant no. 3 in NBT Navbharat Times Newspaper dated 03.12.2012, thereupon the Plaintiff filed Complaint dated 12.12.12 which is pending adjudication. Plaintiff came across the application of the defendant no. 1 impugned trademark NEW JERSEY POLO CLUB under no. 2259118 in Class 25 thereupon the Plaintiff filed the petition/ objection under Section 18(4) and Section 19 against the impugned mark of the defendant no. 1 on 25.04.2013 before the Trade Marks Registry and the said objection is pending till date/However, in the 2nd week of January, 2014, the Plaintiff came to know through market and trade that the defendants are making the clandestine and surreptitious sales thereof under the impugned mark to the Digitally signed PRABH by PRABH DEEP DEEP KAUR Date: 2026.05.26 KAUR 21:42:11 +0530 TM No. 1484/16 Page No. 9 of 26 Polo Lauren Company Vs. Alok Shankar & Ors. Dated 26.05.2026 unscrupulous traders and manufacturers in the markets of South East Delhi Area.
The plaintiff was informed that defendant no.2 is proprietary concern of defendant no.1 through trade and defendant no.3 selling impugned products on its website through its website naaptol.com. Hence, the present suit.
3. Defence of defendant no. 1 and 2:
The defendant no.1 and 2 contested the suit and filed their WS wherein it is stated that in the year 2011, the Defendant No.1 ventured into the business of manufacture and sale of apparel and accessories with registered office at 603, R.G. Trade Tower, Netaji Subhash Place, Pitampura, New Delhi. The products are being offered and sold by Defendant No.1 under the label/ trademark New Jersey POLO CLUB'. That the Defendant No.2 is a company duly incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and Defendant No.1 is one of the directors of Defendant No.2 Company. That Defendant No.1 on 30.12.2011 also filed an application bearing No. 2259118 in Form 1 under section 18(1), rule 25(2) for registration of his trademark ' New Jersey Polo (Logo)' in class 25 to the Registrar of Trademark.
It has also been stated that Defendant no.1, who is using interalia the virtual space or the world wide web with the assistance of Defendant No.2 to advance his business without any intention even remotely to bank upon anybody's name or goodwill or to infringe any trademark/ trade name or to pass off anybody's goods.
It is the case of the Plaintiff that it has been using the trademark POLO under the American Fashion Brand POLO Digitally signed by PRABH PRABH DEEP KAUR DEEP KAUR Date: 2026.05.26 21:42:15 +0530 TM No. 1484/16 Page No. 10 of 26 Polo Lauren Company Vs. Alok Shankar & Ors. Dated 26.05.2026 RALPH LAUREN' over a period of time for its products/ goods and that the said trademark along with its logo has gained substantial reputation and goodwill worldwide. Further the said trademark has been registered in India under various classes with different suffixes and prefixes. That the Plaintiff has further alleged that the Defendant No.1 who is also engaged into similar products/goods has adopted the said trademark and logo of the Plaintiff under the brand name New Jersey POLO CLUB' for similar products/goods, hence is liable for infringement and passing off under the Trademark Act, 1999. However, it is submitted that the Plaintiff has committed gross abuse of the process of law in as much as the action taken by the Plaintiff is palpably vague coupled with ill intention to monopolize on the generic word 'POLO' as well as the equestrian figure or depiction of the sport of polo which is capable of being depicted in varied ways on any product including apparels and accessories. Two trademarks "POLO RALPH LAUREN" i.e trademark of the Plaintiff and "New Jersey POLO CLUB" ie the trademark of the Defendant No.1 along with their respective logos, if compared has got nothing in common either phonetically and /or visually. Infact, the pictorial representation of the logo of the trademark of the Plaintiff is a Polo player on the horse, while the logo of the trademark of the Defendant No.1 is an equestrian figure enclosed in a circle, with leaves all around the boundary of the circle. The stark differences in the word marks as well as in the Logos of both the Trademarks of Plaintiff and Defendant No. 1 are evident of the fact that answering Defendants are not liable in any manner whatsoever for the alleged offences of infringement and passing off brought against them by the Plaintiff in the captioned Digitally signed by PRABH PRABH DEEP DEEP KAUR Date: 2026.05.26 KAUR 21:42:19 +0530 TM No. 1484/16 Page No. 11 of 26 Polo Lauren Company Vs. Alok Shankar & Ors. Dated 26.05.2026 Suit. Further, it may not be out of place to mention that the mark POLO' is a descriptive word and is essentially used to refer to the sport of POLO. That further the said word cannot be claimed as the private/personal property of anyone individual, particularly when the same is not registered in India in the name of that particular individual. It is submitted that the word POLO' by itself is not registered in India in the name of the Plaintiff as would be evinced from the trademark search as is available on the website http://ipindiaservices.gov.in', infact without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the Answering Defendants, it is submitted that the said word "POLO" along with its Logo is registered under Class 25 in the name of the proprietor being one Shri Harkhchand Khimji Veera, therefore even otherwise Plaintiff cannot claim monopoly over the said word. Plaintiff can't claim exclusive right on the word Polo as 'POLO' is neither an invented word nor a specific word, infact the word POLO' is a generic word, more particularly when lot of people and companies are using the same as a part of their trading name or business activities. it is also a settled law that a prior use of the generic names such as 'POLO' br the Plaintiff would not confer upon the Plaintiff, an exclusive right to use that name to the exclusion of others. Any pendency of the applications for registration under the Trade Marks Act, 1999 in regards to such generic names are inconsequential in as much as the generic words such as POLO' is common to entire industry dealing in such products/goods and Plaintiff cannot in any manner whatsoever claim exclusive proprietary rights over such common name which is common in the industry and is a laudatory or common word found in common parlance in every dictionary and Digitally signed by PRABH PRABH DEEP KAUR DEEP KAUR 21:42:23 Date: 2026.05.26 +0530 TM No. 1484/16 Page No. 12 of 26 Polo Lauren Company Vs. Alok Shankar & Ors. Dated 26.05.2026 also alludes to a kind of sport. The Plaintiff by filing such misconceived bogus Suit has maliciously tried to prejudice the mind of this Hon'ble court and deprive the Defendants of their right to do business peacefully and in consequence has violated their Fundamental Rights as enshrined under the Constitution of India. Plaintiff is guilty of coming before this Hon'ble Court with unclean hands in as much as Plaintiff has deliberately not disclosed that there are many other companies and individuals who are carrying out business in India and may be outside, using the generic word 'POLO' either by itself or with a suffix or prefix eg. U.S Polo, Beverly Hills Polo, Toronto Polo, Munich Polo Club, Pologear etc. and essentially the usage of the same cannot be held to be in any manner tantamounting to infringe or copy the trademark/ name/ logo or pass off goods of the Plaintiff. Interestingly, the presence of the aforestated companies and individuals carrying out business under the respective trademarks with the word POLO? Included apparently is evident of the factum that the Plaintiff do not have exclusive right over the word POLO despite claiming to be the prior user of the said word and using the same either by itself or with a suffix or prefix. The word POLO' is not a coined word br the Plaintiff themselves and is a generic word which has become publicily juris and it is a settled law that where the trademark includes a generic component, nobody could be precluded from using it as part of their mark. That further to ascertain whether the similarity of the two trademarks is likely to cause confusion or not, it must be weighed whether the combination of words, devices or symbols have been used in a manner to deceive the public and to cause confusion so as to make them misunderstand one for the other. In Digitally signed by PRABH PRABH DEEP KAUR DEEP KAUR Date: 2026.05.26 21:42:28 +0530 TM No. 1484/16 Page No. 13 of 26 Polo Lauren Company Vs. Alok Shankar & Ors. Dated 26.05.2026 the instant case, the trademark of the Defendant No.1 in its complete form and style, if is compared with the trademark of the Plaintiff then except the generic word POLO' in it, neither the typestyle nor the label colors nor any feature could be said to be similar to the Plaintiff's trademark. Moreso, a trademark when compared to the other trademarks for its distinctiveness is visualized as a whole inclusive of its logo, colors and style. That merely because a generic word or figure of a common sport is part of a trademark does not give right to such a prior user of the said generic word or the figure of the common sport to bring any action against the others using the same, as same would lead to monopolizing over such common words or figures, which the Plaintiff in the instant case has sought to achieve by bringing a vague and vexatious Suit against the Defendants. Therefore, it is prayed that the present suit filed by the plaintiff may be dismissed.
4. Defence of defendant no. 3 Defendant is a company having its registered office at Number-11, Conopus, Kabra Galaxy Star-| CHS, Brahmand, Azad Nagar, Thane West-400 607.It was launched inthe year 2008 and has become one of the India's largest comparisons based social shopping portal. It is a one-stop destination for shoppers, merchants and market enthusiasts, which bind buyers and sellers in a lucrative network. The Defendant is also the recipient of the various awards, as mark of its business excellence and acument.
There is no scope of any confusion or deception between the Plaintiff's and the impugned trademark "NEW JERSEY PRABH Digitally signed by PRABH DEEP DEEP KAUR Date: 2026.05.26 KAUR 21:42:32 +0530 TM No. 1484/16 Page No. 14 of 26 Polo Lauren Company Vs. Alok Shankar & Ors. Dated 26.05.2026 POLO CLUB". That the Defendant is not selling the goods under the Plaintiff's mark "POLO RALPH LAUREN" and it is only selling the goods under the trademark "NEW JERSEY POLO CLUB", which is starkly different from the Plaintiff's mark.
Trademark "NEW JERSEY POLO CLUB" cannot be said to be deceptively similar to the Plaintiff's trademark "POLO RALPH LAUREN" even phonetically, as the mark "NEW JERSEY POLO CLUB" has a distinct pronunciation than that of the Plaintiff's mark "POLO RALPH LAUREN". There is no remote possibility of "NEW JERSEY POLO CLUB" being pronounced and read as "POLO RALPH LAUREN" by the public in general and therefore there is no scope of confusion between the products identified by both the trademarks.
Even the logo/device used/ depicted on the products are totally different as would be evident from the pictoria representation of both the logo. the logo of the goods sold by the Defendant is a "Polo Player on the horse, which is enclosed in a circle, with leaves all around the boundary of the circle". On the other hand, the logo of the Plaintiff is only a Polo Player on the horse. Plaintiff cannot monopolized the logo of the polo player with a raised mallet on a horse, as the same depict the sport of polo.
Plaintiff cannot claim any exclusive right over the mark "POLO". The mark "POLO" is generic in nature and nobody can claimany exclusive right over the same. That there are various other companies in the market, which are using the word "POLO" with a suffix or prefix i.e. US POLO, BEVERLY HILLS POLO, TORONTO POLO" MUNICH POLO CLUB, Digitally signed PRABH by PRABH DEEP DEEP KAUR Date: 2026.05.26 KAUR 21:42:36 +0530 TM No. 1484/16 Page No. 15 of 26 Polo Lauren Company Vs. Alok Shankar & Ors. Dated 26.05.2026 POLOGEAR, etc. It is a settled law that nobody can claim any exclusive right to use the word, abbreviation, or acronym which is generic in nature.
Mark "POLO" is also devoid of any distinctive character as the same is also descriptive in nature. It is submitted that the mark "POLO" clearly refers the sport "POLO" and is not a unique or innovative word. Hence, the Plaintiff cannot claim any exclusive right over the said mark "POLO".
Plaintiff has also claimed common law rights against the Defendant, however it has not filed any cogent evidence along with its suit to show that its trademark "POLO RALPH LAUREN" has attained such a reputation and goodwill in India or worldwide, by which it can claim common law rights over the same.
Defendant's website is a standalone portal having no association with any company save and except that company happens to be a Registered Vendor with the Defendant. It is just an online market place, whereby it offer and enable the buyer of the goods to buy goods for a fixed or agreed sum of consideration from the seller and/or vendor of the goods. The Defendant has neither any way or authority to verify the vendors' intellectual property rights. It has taken a representation in this regard in its agreements with the vendors and accordingly, not responsible for any violation of third party rights, if any. In view of the aforesaid, the Defendant is not doing any kind of illegal or impermissible use of the Plaintiff's trademark.
5. Replication PRABH Digitally signed by PRABH DEEP DEEP KAUR Date: 2026.05.26 KAUR 21:42:40 +0530 TM No. 1484/16 Page No. 16 of 26 Polo Lauren Company Vs. Alok Shankar & Ors. Dated 26.05.2026 The Plaintiff has filed replication to the written statement of defendant thereby reaffirming and reiterating the contents of plaint and denying the contents of written statement.
6. Issues From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed vide order dated 03.06.2019:-
(i) Whether the plaintiff is registered proprietor of the trademark and copyright holder of the trademark in question? (OPP)
(ii) Whether the defendants are passing off and infringing the trademark and copyright of the plaintiff?(OPP)
(iii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of permanent injunction, as prayed for?(OPP)
(iv) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of rendition of account, as prayed for?(OPP)
(v) Relief.
Thereafter, matter was fixed for plaintiff's evidence.
7. Plaintiff's Evidence 7.1 In order to prove their case, the Plaintiff company examined its authorized representative Ms. Meena Bansal as PW-1. He has reiterated the facts of plaint in his affidavit Ex.PW1/A. She has relied upon the following documents :-
1. Ex.PW-1/1 (Colly) (Page No. 1 to 6) - Trade Marks/ Label of the plaintiff.
2. Ex.PW-1/2 (Colly) (Page No. 7 to 9C) - Trade Marks/ Label of the Defendants and related documents.
3. Mark A (Colly) (Page No. 10 to 12) - List of Plaintiff Trademarks.
4. Ex.PW-1/3 (Colly) (Page No. 13 to 30, 33-46, 49-62) -
Status and registration certificate of plaintiff trademarks.
PRABH Digitally by PRABH DEEP KAUR signed DEEP Date:
2026.05.26 KAUR 21:42:43 +0530 TM No. 1484/16 Page No. 17 of 26 Polo Lauren Company Vs. Alok Shankar & Ors. Dated 26.05.2026
5. Ex.PW-1/3A (Colly-OSR) (Page No. 31 to 32, 47-48) - Copies of Legal Proceeding Certificate.
6. Ex.PW-1/4 (Colly) (Page No. 63 to 100) - Documents pertaining to the plaintiff registered trademarks outside India.
7. Ex.PW-1/5 (Colly) (Page No. 101 to 138) - Plaintiffs Various documents, advertisement material etc. showing user of subject matter trademark India.
8. Ex.PW-1/6 (Colly) (Page No. 139 to 164) - Documents reflecting the plaintiff history to product under the subject matter trademark/label.
9. Ex.PW-1/7 (Colly) (Page No. 165 to 221) - Specimen of the plaintiff letter of authorization along with the buying agency agreement between the plaintiff and its licensees in India.
10. Ex.PW-1/8 (Colly) (Page No. 222 to 230) - Plaintiffs list of licensees, authorized manufacturer in India including in South East, Delhi.
11. Ex.PW-1/9 (Colly) (Page No. 231 to 251) - Documents showing sale of plaintiff products in India including South East, Delhi.
12. Ex.PW-1/10 (Page No. 251) - Document showing the office address of L'oreal within the jurisdiction of Hon'ble Court.
13. Ex.PW-1/11 (Page No. 302) - Newspaper advertisement showing impugned acts of the Defendant No. 3.
14. Ex.PW-1/12 (Colly) (Page No. 303 to 332) - Complaint filed by the plaintiff against the Defendant No. 3 in EOW.
15. Ex.PW-1/13 (Colly) (Page No. 333 to 334, Page No. 7) -
online status of the Defendant No. 1 impugned trademark PRABH Digitally by PRABH DEEP KAUR signed DEEP Date:
2026.05.26 KAUR 21:42:47 +0530 TM No. 1484/16 Page No. 18 of 26 Polo Lauren Company Vs. Alok Shankar & Ors. Dated 26.05.2026 application filed for the registration of the impugned trademark which is now refused.
16. Ex.PW-1/14 (OSR) (Page No. 6) - Authorization in my favour.
17. Ex.PW-1/15 (Colly) (Page No. 1 to 3) - Online confirmation of order bearing No. 8252999.
PW-1 was cross examined by Sh. Manish Kumar Shekhari, Ld. Counsel for defendant no.3.
8. At the stage of further cross examination of PW-1, matter was settled between plaintiff and defendant no.3. In view thereof, vide order dated 11.12.2024, the suit was disposed of as withdrawn as settled against defendant no.3.
9. Ex-parte Record further reveals that defendant no.1 and 2 were proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 14.03.2026 as defendant no.1 and 2 failed to appear despite repeated opportunities being given.
10. I have heard Ld. Counsel for plaintiff and carefully perused the record. Ms. Ayushi Arora, Ld. Counsel for plaintiff have addressed final arguments. She has filed written arguments in which she has reiterated the arguments addressed before the Court. The same are not reproduced here in verbatim for the sake of brevity but will be dealt alongwith the findings upon issues at the relevant stage. Record has been carefully perused.
11. Plaintiff has placed reliance upon following judgments :
I. Midas Hygiene Industries (P) Ltd. V. Sudhir Bhatia and Ors. (2004) 3 SCC 90) II. Leayan Global Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Bata India FAO (OS) (COMM) 105/2019 (Judgment dated 15.12.2025) Digitally signed by PRABH PRABH DEEP DEEP KAUR Date: 2026.05.26 KAUR 21:42:51 +0530 TM No. 1484/16 Page No. 19 of 26 Polo Lauren Company Vs. Alok Shankar & Ors. Dated 26.05.2026 III. The Polo Lauren Company LP vs. Sandeep Arora - 2022: DHC:446 IV. The Polo Lauren Company LP vs. Europa Bevcorp and Ors. -CS (COMM) 730 of 2022 V. The Polo Lauren Company L.P vs. Home Needs - FAO(COMM) 213 of 2023 VI. The Polo Lauren Company L.P. vs. Chirag Ashwinbhai Parekh -CS(COMM) No. 350/2020
VII. The Polo /Lauren Company L.P. Vs. Rohit S Bajaj and Ors.
VIII. Sandisk L1c & Anr. Vs. Laxmi Mobiles & Ors CS(Comm) 589 of 2019;
IX. Lt Foods Company Vs. Saraswati Trading Company, CS (Comm No. 413/2021.
X. Louis Vuitton Malletier V. Iqbal Singh and Ors. 2019 (78) PTC 315 (Del).
12. Issue-wise findings is below:-
Issues no. (i) to (iv)
(i) Whether the plaintiff is registered proprietor of the trademark and copyright holder of the trademark in question? (OPP)
(ii) Whether the defendants are passing off and infringing the trademark and copyright of the plaintiff?(OPP)
(iii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of permanent injunction, as prayed for?(OPP)
(iv) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of rendition of account, as prayed for?(OPP) The onus to prove issue nos. i to iv was placed upon the plaintiff. These issues are taken together for the sake of brevity as theses issues are interlinked and involve same discussion.
The principal question before this Court is whether the plaintiff has been able to establish that present defendants (defendant no.1 and 2) were actually involved in the alleged infringing activities.
13. To establish its rights over the trademark, plaintiff has relied upon the following documents which pertains to the rights / interest of the plaintiff, as claimed by the plaintiff:-
Digitally signed byPRABH PRABH DEEP DEEP KAUR Date: 2026.05.26 KAUR 21:42:56 +0530 TM No. 1484/16 Page No. 20 of 26 Polo Lauren Company Vs. Alok Shankar & Ors. Dated 26.05.2026 Ex.PW-1/1 (Colly) Trade Marks/ Label of the plaintiff, Mark A (Colly) List of Plaintiff Trademarks, Ex.PW-1/3 (Colly) Status and registration certificate of plaintiff trademarks, Ex.PW-1/3A (Colly-OSR) Copies of Legal Proceeding Certificate, Ex.PW-1/4 (Colly) Documents pertaining to the plaintiff registered trademarks outside India, Ex.PW-1/5 (Colly) Plaintiffs Various documents, advertisement material etc. showing user of subject matter trademark India, Ex.PW-1/6 (Colly) Documents reflecting the plaintiff history to product under the subject matter trademark/label, Ex.PW-1/7 (Colly) Specimen of the plaintiff letter of authorization along with the buying agency agreement between the plaintiff and its licensees in India, Ex.PW-1/8 (Colly) Plaintiffs list of licensees, authorized manufacturer in India including in South East, Delhi, Ex.PW-1/9 (Colly) Documents showing sale of plaintiff products in India including South East, Delhi, Ex.PW-1/10 Document showing the office address of L'oreal within the jurisdiction of Hon'ble Court and Ex.PW-1/14 (OSR) (Page No. 6) - Authorization in my favour.
These documents pertain to the claim of the plaintiff with respect to the trade mark used by the plaintiff.
14. Now the suit has been instituted by one Ms. Surbhi Bansal on the basis of one Resolution-cum-authority letter. However, plaintiff has not placed on record any document to prove that she has been duly authorized by board of directors of the plaintiff company to institute the present suit. No board of resolution and minutes of meetings in this regard have been placed on record by the plaintiff. No official of the plaintiff company had entered into PRABH by Digitally signed PRABH DEEP DEEP KAUR Date: 2026.05.26 KAUR 21:43:00 +0530 TM No. 1484/16 Page No. 21 of 26 Polo Lauren Company Vs. Alok Shankar & Ors. Dated 26.05.2026 witness box to depose that Ms. Surbhi Bansal had been duly authorized to file the present suit.
15. Further, the plaintiff has examined one Ms. Meena Bansal as PW-1 and she has relied upon the Resolution-cum-authority letter dated 01.01.2019. However, plaintiff has not placed on record any document to prove that she has been duly authorized by board of directors of the plaintiff company to depose in the present suit on behalf of plaintiff. No board of resolution and minutes of meetings in this regard have been placed on record by the plaintiff. No official of the plaintiff company had entered into witness box to depose that Ms. Meena Bansal had been duly authorized to depose on behalf of plaintiff or that Mr. Anna Dalla Val, Vice President and Secretary had been authorized by Board of Directors to appoint AR to file the suit in India.
16. Further, the authorization letter Ex.PW1/14 in favour of Ms. Meena Bansal clearly states in clause no.6 that "the said resolution-cum-authority shall expire on 31.12.2020 and shall be revocable by the Polo /Lauren Company LP, anytime before the date of expiration". The testimony of PW-1 Ms. Meena Bansal has been recorded on 21.04.2022 while as per the authorization letter Ex.PW1/14, her authority to represent the plaintiff company expired on 31.12.2020. Thus, on the date of testimony of PW-1 i.e. on 21.04.2022 Ms. Meena Bansal had no authority to represent the plaintiff company nor any authority to depose on behalf of plaintiff company.
In view of above discussion, it is clear that Ms. Surbhi Bansal is not duly authorized AR of the plaintiff to file the present suit on its behalf nor Ms. Meena Bansal is duly authorized AR of the plaintiff to depose on behalf of plaintiff.
PRABH Digitally signed by PRABH DEEP KAUR DEEP KAUR 21:43:05 Date: 2026.05.26 +0530 TM No. 1484/16 Page No. 22 of 26 Polo Lauren Company Vs. Alok Shankar & Ors. Dated 26.05.2026
17. Let us assume for the sake of arguments that PW-1 was authorized AR of the plaintiff-
Now plaintiff has examined PW-1 and has placed on record various trademark registrations, documents relating to use, promotional material, agreements with licensees, sales figures and foreign registrations to establish goodwill and reputation in the mark "POLO" and its formative marks.
However, mere proof of registration or reputation of a trademark does not automatically entitle the plaintiff to a decree unless infringement or passing off by the present defendants is specifically established.
18. The defendants specifically pleaded in their WS that the word POLO is as generic word and several trades are using the word POLO in their trade. It is stated by the defendants that the rival marks are structurally, visually and phonetically different when it compared and the the logo/device used by the defendant is entirely distinguishable from that of plaintiff.
Thus the present controversy is not merely regarding existence of registrations but whether the defendants have infringed any enforceable right of the plaintiff. It is pertinent that the word "POLO" by itself is admittedly a generic and commonly used expression associated with the sport of polo. Admittedly, there are several traders and entities, who are using the word "POLO" with different prefixes and suffixes in the market and that the plaintiff does not possess exclusive statutory rights over the stand alone word "POLO". For example, there are various entities namely US Polo Assn., Beverly Hills Polo Club PRABH Digitally signed by PRABH DEEP KAUR DEEP Date: 2026.05.26 KAUR 21:43:10 +0530 TM No. 1484/16 Page No. 23 of 26 Polo Lauren Company Vs. Alok Shankar & Ors. Dated 26.05.2026 etc. All these entities are using the term 'Polo' with one or other prefixes or suffixes.
19. Further, the onus is upon the plaintiff to prove that defendants have infringed the trademark of the plaintiff. To prove the liability of defendants plaintiff has relied upon following documents i.e. Ex.PW1/2 (colly) Trade Marks /Label of defendants and related documents, Ex.PW-1/11 Newspaper advertisement showing impugned acts of the Defendant No. 3, Ex.PW-1/12 (Colly) Complaint filed by the plaintiff against the Defendant No. 3 in EOW, Ex.PW-1/13 (Colly) online status of the Defendant No. 1 impugned trademark application filed for the registration of the impugned trademark which is now refused and Ex.PW-1/15 (Colly) Online confirmation of order bearing No. 8252999.
However, no cogent evidence has been led to establish that the manufacturing activities of trade mark of plaintiff was done by defendant no.1 and 2. No invoices, sales records, stock seizure, purchase bills, independent market investigation report or testimony of any customer or investigator has been produced to establish actual sale or manufacture of infringing goods by defendant nos.1 and 2. The plaintiff has also failed to prove that the impugned goods originated from defendant nos.1 and 2.
The document Ex.PW1/11, Ex.PW1/12 and Ex.PW1/15 (colly) are related to acts of defendant no.3. However the suit already stood withdrawn/settled qua defendant no.3. No independent evidence has been produced to show that the defendant no.1 and 2 infringing the sales bearing trade mark of plaintiff.
PRABH Digitally signed
by PRABH DEEP
DEEP KAUR
Date: 2026.05.26
KAUR 21:43:13 +0530
TM No. 1484/16 Page No. 24 of 26
Polo Lauren Company Vs. Alok Shankar & Ors. Dated 26.05.2026
20. Clearly, except for bald assertions, the plaintiff has failed to place any cogent and reliable evidence connecting defendant nos. 1 and 2 with the alleged infringing activities. In the present matter admittedly, plaintiff has not placed on record any material or goods allegedly belonging to defendant no.1 and 2 to prove the infringement by the defendants as alleged. In absence of infringing goods, Court cannot make a reasonable comparison of the rival marks. Further, plaintiff has only relied upon online confirmation Ex.PW1/15 and Ex.PW1/2 (colly) Trade Marks /Label of defendants and related documents. Now the document Ex.PW1/2 (colly) are the coloured photographs of online portal belonging to defendant no.3 and there is no supporting certificate U/s 65 B of the IEA. Further, plaintiff has relied upon online confirmation of the order, but admittedly, the order has not been delivered to the plaintiff. Thus, clearly in absence of infringing goods, the basic premise of the plaintiff's case falls to the ground.
21. Even otherwise, though the plaintiff has proved certain trademark registrations, the plaintiff has failed to establish exclusive proprietary rights over the generic expression "POLO" simpliciter against the present defendants. Therefore, plaintiff possesses registrations of certain formative trademarks, but not exclusive monopoly over the standalone word "POLO".
22. I have gone through the judgments relied upon by the plaintiff. The judgments reiterated the well established principles related to trade mark but they are not applicable to the facts in hand as in the present suit plaintiff has failed to prove the authority of AR and also for want of infringing goods.
Digitally signed PRABH by PRABH DEEP DEEP KAUR Date: 2026.05.26 KAUR 21:43:17 +0530 TM No. 1484/16 Page No. 25 of 26 Polo Lauren Company Vs. Alok Shankar & Ors. Dated 26.05.2026
In these circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the plaintiff has failed to discharge the burden of proving infringement, passing off or copyright violation against defendant nos.1 and 2. In absence of the same, plaintiff is neither entitled to any decree of permanent injunction nor is entitled for rendition of accounts. Accordingly, issue no.i to iv are decided against the plaintiff and in favour of defendant nos.1 and 2.
23. RELIEF In view of finding upon issue no.i to iv, the suit of the plaintiff stands dismissed. Parties shall bear their own costs. All the pending applications stand dismissed being not pressed upon.
Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
PRABH Digitally signed by PRABH DEEP KAUR DEEP Date:
KAUR 2026.05.26 21:43:22 +0530 Typed to the direct dictation and (Prabh Deep Kaur) announced in the open court DJ-05/South-East District on this 26th May, 2026 Saket Courts, New Delhi TM No. 1484/16 Page No. 26 of 26 Polo Lauren Company Vs. Alok Shankar & Ors. Dated 26.05.2026