Delhi High Court - Orders
Louis Vuitton Malletier vs M3M India Private Limited & Anr on 27 February, 2026
Author: Tushar Rao Gedela
Bench: Tushar Rao Gedela
$~21
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CS(COMM) 198/2026
LOUIS VUITTON MALLETIER .....Plaintiff
Through: Ms. Pooja Dodd and Mr. Anuraj
Tirthankar Advocates.
versus
M3M INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR. .....Defendants
Through: Mr. Rohin K. and Mr. Sumit Attri,
Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA
ORDER
% 27.02.2026 I.A. 5487/2026 (Pre-Institution Mediation)
1. This is an application filed by the plaintiff seeking exemption from instituting pre-litigation Mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 ('CC Act').
2. As the present matter contemplates urgent interim relief, in light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Yamini Manohar vs. T.K.D. Keerthi:
(2024) 5 SCC 815, exemption from the requirement of pre-institution Mediation is granted.
3. The application stands disposed of.
I.A. 5488/2026 (Additional Documents)
4. The present application has been filed on behalf of the plaintiff under Order XI Rule 1(4) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ('CPC') as applicable to commercial suits under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 ('CC Act') seeking leave to place on record additional documents.
5. The plaintiff is permitted to file additional documents in accordance with the provisions of the CC Act and the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, CS(COMM) 198/2026 Page 1 of 11 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/03/2026 at 20:45:50 2018 within thirty (30) days.
6. Accordingly, the application stands disposed of.
I.A. 5489/2026 (Seeking leave to place on record an infringing reel in a pen drive/compact disc)
7. This is an application filed on behalf of the plaintiff under Section 151 of CPC seeking to place on record an infringing reel in a pen drive/compact disc.
8. The plaintiff is permitted to place on record an infringing reel in a pen drive/compact disc within four weeks.
9. The application stands disposed of.
I.A. 5490/2026 (Order XXXIX Rules 1& 2, CPC)
10. Present application has been filed on behalf of the plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 of CPC, 1908 seeking ex-parte ad-interim injunction against the defendant.
11. Plaintiff is a company organised and existing under the laws of France with the registered office at Paris, France. "LOUIS VUITTON" mark was adopted in Paris in the year 1854 and used as the corporate name of the plaintiff. It is stated that in 1896, Mr. Georges Vuitton created a distinctive 'LV' Monogram on canvas . It is stated that over the years, the plaintiff has risen to an iconic status in the world of luxury leather, fashion and lifestyle brands, and in the year 1987, the plaintiff merged with Moët Hennessy S.A. to form Louis Vuitton Moët Hennessy ("LVMH"), a French conglomerate. LVMH claims to own a portfolio of 75 prestigious luxurious brands in the world including Louis Vuitton amongst others.
12. Plaintiff claims that the standalone letters 'L' and 'V' as the core components of the interlocked logo, have gained significant recognition that evoke an immediate connection with the plaintiff's products. LV has CS(COMM) 198/2026 Page 2 of 11 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/03/2026 at 20:45:50 transcended its function as an acronym, and has become a distinctive identifier of the plaintiff's brand. The said interlocked logo are prominently and independently featured in association with plaintiff's luxury products, including leather goods, apparel, footwear, watches and accessories.
13. Plaintiff opened its first exclusive retail store at the Oberoi Hotel in New Delhi in the year 2003, followed by similar stores in Bangalore and Mumbai, which are authorised to sell plaintiff's products in India. Plaintiff claims to have spent substantial time, money and resources towards sales, promotion and advertisement expenses, and products featuring LV marks worldwide, and in India, through leading fashion magazines such as Elle, Vogue and Vanity Fair. The famous fashion photographer Annie Leibovitz is claimed to have filmed several prestigious celebrities such Steffi Graf, Andre Agassi and others for the plaintiff's advertisement. Plaintiff's products are also endorsed routinely by famous celebrities such Madonna, Sean Connery, Michelle Williams, Angelina Jolie etc. Plaintiff claims to have a brand values of approximately USD 48.4 billion as on date and regularly features in the list of ten top fashion brands which are detailed below:
CS(COMM) 198/2026 Page 3 of 11This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/03/2026 at 20:45:50
14. Plaintiff has obtained registration for the LV mark including the interlocked LV logo as far back as on 08.08.1985 in Class 18. The list of CS(COMM) 198/2026 Page 4 of 11 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/03/2026 at 20:45:50 such registrations obtained subsequently are detailed in para 22 of the plaint. The plaintiff claims to have zero tolerance towards infringement, counterfeiting and imitation of its marks by competitors or third party traders plaintiff claims to have been vigilant in protecting its intellectual property rights to preserve its goodwill, reputation, prestige and exclusivity of its designs. Plaintiff claims to sell its products only through standalone boutiques or e-commerce website. In para 24 of the plaint, the plaintiff has referred to some of the decisions passed in its favour in this Court wherein the word mark LOUIS VUITTON, the interlocked LV logo , string of letters L and V, and the Toile monogram design as well-known trademarks in India. Subsequently, the word mark LOUIS VUITTON also is included in the list of well-known trademarks maintained by the Trade Mark Registry. Supporting documents are filed in the list of documents accompanying the plaint.
15. Around late September, 2025, plaintiff discovered that defendant no.2/ Bric-X Infra Private Limited on its Instagram handle namely 'luxurypropertyofficials' had posted an infringing advertisement for a real estate offering using the plaintiff's LOUIS VUITTON mark in the description while misspelling 'LOIUS'. The defendant no.2 falsely claimed that people can buy shares in the plaintiff which is offering real estate investment opportunities in a project. The advertisement intended to misrepresent that the plaintiff is offering a wealth building asset and opening a store in the said project thereby defrauding the public by promising financial gains, luring them into investing their hard earned money by promising them multiplies returns. Plaintiff apprehends that defendant no.2 may have committed financial scams and losses to the public as well. One such Instagram screenshot is reproduced CS(COMM) 198/2026 Page 5 of 11 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/03/2026 at 20:45:50 hereunder:
Defendant no.2 also maintains a Facebook page committing similar infringement which is extracted hereunder:
16. Further investigation revealed that the impugned projects 'M3M Route 65' and 'M3M Jewel' unauthorizedly used plaintiff's mark LOUIS VUITTON CS(COMM) 198/2026 Page 6 of 11 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/03/2026 at 20:45:50 to create a false association with plaintiff and misrepresent as if it is launching a Louis Vuitton showroom. The investigations also revealed that the defendant nos.1 and 2 are also using the impugned marks for the promotion and sale of the aforesaid impugned projects. It is stated that when the investigator expressed interest in investing in the said project, a director of defendant no.2 made a false claim that the Louis Vuitton Company has procured units on lease in the said project, which was false to the knowledge of the defendant nos.1 and 2. No such units or any investment has been initiated by the plaintiff at all.
17. Similar investigations with defendant no.1 also disclosed the prolific unauthorised use of the plaintiff's LV marks by purposely misspelling the trademark "LOUIS VUITTON" with "LOIS VUTTON", screenshots of such infringement are extracted hereunder:
CS(COMM) 198/2026 Page 7 of 11This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/03/2026 at 20:45:50
18. The investigations and search conducted by the investigator and the plaintiff also revealed extensive infringement of its LV marks on several third party real estate listing platforms such as M3M IFC Gurgaon: The Ultimate Commercial Destination, M3M Jewel Boutique Luxury Retail MG Road Sector 25 Gurgaon | Settlers India, and M3M Urbana Premium, Sector 67, Gurgaon is in sector 68 Gurgaon. In support of the aforesaid, the relevant extracts of the infringing third party websites, blogs and reels are filed as Document-17 and the Investigator's affidavit dated 27.01.2026 is placed on record as Document 18.
19. Plaintiff has also sent cease and desist notices via WhatsApp while a physical copy of the same was sent to defendant no.1 through speed post, which was received back with the endorsement 'refused to accept', however, the tracking report erroneously mentions 'returned to sender-insufficient address'. None of the defendants have complied with the demands raised in the cease and desist notice, and are stated to continue the infringing activities narrated above.
20. Based on the above, the plaintiff seeks an ex-parte ad-interim injunction apart from other urgent reliefs.
21. This Court has heard the arguments of Mr. Anuraj Tirthankar, learned counsel for the plaintiff, perused the plaint, and examined the documents placed on record alongwith the plaint.
22. The plaintiff has been able to demonstrate that it is a registered proprietor of not only the word mark LOUIS VUITTON worldwide but also registered in India as far back as in the year 1985, including the LV marks, and the interlocked LV logo . The plaintiff claims to have a brand value of USD 48.4 billion, and clearly enjoys tremendous goodwill and reputation in India too, which is evident on account of the revenue of around €39.8 billion in the first half of the year 2025. That apart, the plaintiff has clearly been vigilant CS(COMM) 198/2026 Page 8 of 11 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/03/2026 at 20:45:50 in taking immediate steps to protect any kind of an infringement regarding its registered trademarks in India, and its registered trademarks/logos have been declared to be well-known trademarks by this Court in the lawsuits mentioned in para 24 of the plaint. Even the Trade Marks Registry has enlisted the mark LOUIS VUITTON of the plaintiff in the list of well-known trademarks in the years 2006 and 2014. The said mark was declared as a well-known trademark vide the judgments passed by this Court in CS(OS) 90/2006 and CS(OS) 270/2014.
23. The infringing advertisements and listings clearly evidence that the defendants are either using the identical LOUIS VUITTON trademark or deceptively similar mark and appear to dishonestly but intentionally misspell the mark as 'LOIS VUTTON' to mislead the general public into believing as if the projects of which such listings and advertisements are found, to be somehow associated with the plaintiff or invested into by the plaintiffs. Both of which are asserted to be completely false and fictitious. Prima facie, it appears to be a case of abject infringement by the defendants leading also to dilution of the trademark LOUIS VUITTON and the LV logo of the plaintiff. Evidently, the plaintiff has a prima facie strong case. Having regard to the aforesaid, balance of convenience is tilted in the favour of plaintiff and in case immediate and urgent ex-parte ad-interim injunction is not granted in favour of plaintiff, loss and injury which may not be adequately compensated in monetary terms may be suffered by the plaintiff. In view thereof, ex-parte ad-interim injunction and other urgent reliefs as sought would be in order.
24. Accordingly, the following directions are passed:-
i. The defendants, their directors, agents, dealers, affiliates, distributors, dealers, retailers, employees, agents, if any, officers, stockists, licensees, servants, representatives, assignees or anyone acting on their CS(COMM) 198/2026 Page 9 of 11 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/03/2026 at 20:45:50 behalf and/or all those found in active participation or concert with them, are restrained from marketing, advertising, offering for sale, selling or otherwise using in any manner whatsoever, the impugned marks for the promotion, advertisement, and sale of the impugned projects as well as plaintiff's LV marks and/or any other trademark, trade name, and/or any business activity. ii. The defendants and all those acting on their behalf are directed to remove, withdraw, recall, take down, and permanently delete all infringing content, listings, advertisements, brochures, pamphlets, catalogues, hoardings, signage, kiosks, social media posts, website content, business papers, promotional material, and other material bearing the plaintiff's LV marks from all online platforms including third-party real estate websites, portals, blogs, and social media platforms, as well as from all offline medium, forthwith.
25. Issue notice.
26. Mr. Rohin K, learned counsel appears and accepts notice on behalf of defendant no.1 by virtue of advance service. Learned counsel stated that the infringement alleged against the defendant no.1 shall be removed/taken down forthwith by the defendant no.1 which according to him, was not intentional.
27. Having regard to the statement made on behalf of the defendant no.1, the defendant no.1 is directed to comply with directions mentioned in para 24 above forthwith, and file an affidavit of compliance within 15 days from date. An advance copy thereof shall be furnished to the learned counsel for the plaintiff.
28. Let a reply to this application be filed by remaining defendants within four weeks from service. Rejoinder, thereto, if any, be filed within two weeks CS(COMM) 198/2026 Page 10 of 11 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/03/2026 at 20:45:50 thereafter.
29. Compliance of Order XXXIX Rule 3 of CPC shall be done within ten days from date.
CS(COMM) 198/2026
30. Let the plaint be registered as a suit.
31. Upon filing of the process fee, issue summons of the suit to the defendants through all permissible modes.
32. The summons shall state that the Written Statement shall be filed by the defendants within 30 days from the date of the receipt of summons. Alongwith the Written Statement, the defendants shall also file Affidavit of Admission/Denial of the documents of the plaintiff, without which the Written Statement shall not be taken on record.
33. Liberty is granted to the plaintiff to file Replication, if any, within 30 days from the receipt of the Written Statement. Along with the Replication filed by the plaintiff, an Affidavit of Admission/Denial of the documents of defendants be filed by the plaintiff, without which the Replication shall not be taken on record.
34. In case any party is placing reliance on a document, which is not in their power and possession, its details and source shall be mentioned in the list of reliance, which shall also be filed with the pleadings.
35. If any of the parties wish to seek inspection of any documents, the same shall be sought and given within the prescribed timelines.
36. List before the Joint Registrar (Judicial) on 05.05.2026 for completion of service and pleadings.
37. List before the Court on 03.09.2026.
TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J FEBRUARY 27, 2026 Sumit/rl CS(COMM) 198/2026 Page 11 of 11 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/03/2026 at 20:45:50