Delhi District Court
Levi Strauss And Co vs K.K.K. Garments on 21 February, 2026
IN THE COURT OF SH. SUDESH KUMAR
DISTRICT JUDGE COMMERCIAL COURT-01, SHAHDARA,
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
CS (Comm) No. 358/2021
CNR No. DLSH01-007944-2024
LEVI STRAUSS & CO.
1155 Battery Street, San Francisco,
State of California, USA.
.....Plaintiff
Versus
1. K.K.K. GARMENTS
IX/1274, Main Road,
Gandhi Nagar, Delhi-110 031.
2. MR. PANKAJ BANSAL
M/s Bansal Enterprises,
Shop No.99, Banarsai Dass Building,
Main Market, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi-110 031.
3. MR. SANYAM JAIN
Jain Arihant Fashion,
Shop No. 44, Near Banarsi Das Building,
Main Road, Gandhi Nagar,
Delhi-110 031.
.....Defendants
Date of Institution of the case : 29.09.2021
Date of conclusion of the final arguments : 16.02.2026
Date of judgment : 21.02.2026
JUDGMENT
The plaintiff has filed the present commercial suit under sections 134, 135, 29 and 27 of Trademarks Act,1999; Section 55 of Copyright Act, 1957 for permanent injunction restraining sudesh Digitally signed by sudesh kumar CS (Comm.) No.358/2021 page 1 of 18 kumar 16:58:37 +0530 Date: 2026.02.21 D.J.(Commercial Court)-01/Shahdara/KKD/Delhi infringement of trademarks, passing off, copyright, delivery up and rendition of accounts etc.
2. Brief facts of the case are that plaintiff is a company registered under the laws of California, United States of America (USA), having its registered office at 115, Battery Street, San Francisco, State of California, USA. The present suit has been instituted through Ms. Meena Bansal, who has been duly authorized by way of power of attorney and is competent to file, sign and verify the plaint and to institute the present suit on behalf of plaintiff.
3. It is averred in the plaint that the plaintiff company is engaged in the business of manufacturing and marketing of clothing of all kinds, readymade garments and clothing and leisure shoes, belts, wallets, spectacle glasses, sunglasses, bags and other accessories under the trademark/label and other formative and variants of Levi's and carrying on its business in Delhi through its exclusive franchise and showrooms in various parts of Delhi.
4. It is further averred that plaintiff company is operating across the globe and its products are available in India as well. The plaintiff company has been innovating since 1873, the year it created and patented the world's first blue jeans, while the patent has long expired, the plaintiff company's commitment to innovation continues. The plaintiff company operates in more than 110 countries worldwide and throughout its long history, the plaintiff company has inspired change in the market place, the CS (Comm.) No.358/2021 page 2 of 18 D.J.(Commercial Court)-01/Shahdara/KKD/Delhi Digitally signed by sudesh kumar sudesh kumar +0530 Date: 2026.02.21 16:58:49 workplace and the world.
5. It is further stated that brand was known in India even before its launch in the country because of its global presence. The plaintiff company ventured into the youth segment in India in 1994 by launching its products under the iconic brand name and the company has even built a strong retail and distribution network across India. It is further averred that in India is being built as the most definitive, the trendiest and the most premium apparel brand targeted at trendsetter and early adopters and the company has grown exponentially over the last few years in India, helped by a huge retail thrust.
6. It is further averred in the plaint that the plaintiff company is owner of trademarks and "Levi's (Housemark)", "Two Horse Logo" and the "Arcuate Stitching Design"
and the trademarks of the plaintiff company are registered under the provisions of Trademarks Act, 1999 and are subsisting. The said trademarks alongwith various LEVI's formatives and variants of the plaintiff company are registered under the provisions of Trademark Act, 1999. It is stated that the art work involved in the plaintiff's aforesaid trademarks is original artistic works within the meaning of Indian Copyright Act, 1957 and plaintiff is the owner and proprietor thereof. The plaintiff company has exclusive right to use its registered trademark in respect of its goods in the classes for which registration has been taken and no one is entitled to use the said trademark or/ any identical and/or deceptively or confusingly similar trademark in CS (Comm.) No.358/2021 page 3 of 18 D.J.(Commercial Court)-01/Shahdara/KKD/Delhi sudesh Digitally signed by sudesh kumar kumar Date: 2026.02.21 16:59:00 +0530 respect of goods maintained by the plaintiff. With respect to apparels bearing trademark and "Levi's (Housemark)", "Two Horse Logo" and the "Arcuate Stitching Design" it is stated that the said logos are embossed and written on its products. The products sold under these trademarks are very prominent in the trade.
7. It is then stated that on account of excellent quality and standard of manufacturing as well as efforts made by the plaintiff in advertising and marketing, the goods sold in above noted trademarks, the plaintiff company has acquired unique distinction and enviable reputation and goodwill in India. The plaintiff company from sale of its products under the trademark and "Levi's (Housemark)", "Two Horse Logo"
and the "Arcuate Stitching Design" also generated huge net revenue.
8. It is stated that the defendants are engaged in manufacturing and marketing, storing and selling of counterfeit goods bearing the falsified trademarks and "Levi's (Housemark)", "Two Horse Logo" and the "Arcuate Stitching Design" through out the markets of District Shahdara, Delhi and beyond.
9. It is further averred that during a recent market survey in the month of September 2021, plaintiff come to know that the defendants are manufacturing, storing and selling jeans under the CS (Comm.) No.358/2021 page 4 of 18 D.J.(Commercial Court)-01/Shahdara/KKD/Delhi sudesh Digitally signed by sudesh kumar kumar Date: 2026.02.21 16:59:09 +0530 trademark and "Levi's (Housemark)", "Two Horse Logo"
and the "Arcuate Stitching Design" logos deceptively similar trademarks which are much inferior in quality than the products of plaintiff. The labels attached and the trademarks embossed on the impugned products of defendants are same/similar in design and appearance, as those used by the plaintiff company and thus, the defendants are blatantly counterfeiting the registered trademarks of plaintiff company in complete contravention of the law of the land.
10. It is further averred that the defendants are manufacturing and selling goods which are deceptively similar to the goods of the plaintiff, but of much inferior quality. The plaintiff has given similar as well as distinguishing features of its product and the product of defendants in the plaint. It is stated that defendants have infringed the registered trademarks and logos of plaintiff with malafide name by affixing same/similar trademarks and "Levi's (Housemark)", "Two Horse Logo"
and the "Arcuate Stitching Design". The said adoption by defendants is not by a random or chance occurrence but outcome of devious scheming and meticulous planning with ultimate object of deceiving and misleading the public and customers by the defendants. It is stated that defendants have adopted and started using the impugned trademarks i.e. exact replica of said trademarks of plaintiff's in relation to their impugned goods. It is averred that defendants were also using the same trade dress along with the impugned counterfeit labels in order to give a CS (Comm.) No.358/2021 page 5 of 18 D.J.(Commercial Court)-01/Shahdara/KKD/Delhi sudesh Digitally signed by sudesh kumar Date: 2026.02.21 kumar 16:59:17 +0530 false description to its impugned goods. The impugned marks adopted/used by the defendants imitate the entire shape, color scheme, manner, placement of literary and artistic work on the impugned counterfeit labels/goods and are identical to the plaintiff's said trademark/label in each and every respect including phonetically, visually, structurally in its basic idea and essential features. It is stated that defendants are using all kinds of false description on its impugned goods to wrongly link the impugned goods with the plaintiff and to wrongly convey to the public and customers that the impugned goods are coming from the source and origin of plaintiff.
11. It is averred that defendants are not the proprietor of impugned trademark and has adopted and using the same in relation to their impugned goods and also reproducing it on their impugned counterfeit labels and is otherwise dealing with it in the course of trade without the leave and license of the plaintiff. It is stated that due to defendants impugned activities, plaintiff is suffering huge losses both in business and in reputation and losses are incapable of being assessed in monetary terms. Hence, the plaintiff has filed the present suit.
12. The instant suit was initially filed by plaintiff against an unknown John Doe. Pursuant to application Under Order XXXIX Rule 1& 2 CPC and Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC, the Predecessor Court granted ex-parte stay in favour of plaintiff restraining defendants, its agent and authorized representatives from selling, advertising or marketing its products under the mark and CS (Comm.) No.358/2021 page 6 of 18 D.J.(Commercial Court)-01/Shahdara/KKD/Delhi sudesh Digitally signed by sudesh kumar kumar Date: 2026.02.21 16:59:28 +0530 "Levi's (Housemark)", "Two Horse Logo" and the "Arcuate Stitching Design" in any manner vide order dated 01.11.2021. The Court also appointed a Local Commissioner vide the said order. The Ld. Local Commissioner visited the premises of the defendant and submitted the report. In the report Local Commissioner gave the names of the persons found engaged in the infringing activities. On basis of the said report plaintiff filed an application Under Section 151 CPC for taking on record the amended memo of parties mentioning three defendants to the suit.
13. Pursuant to summons issued to defendants, defendant no. 1 & 3 appeared and filed their written statements. However, subsequently the plaintiff and defendants no. 1 & 2 settled their dispute amicably and voluntarily in mediation, on the terms and conditions as mentioned in settlement dated 13.08.2024. Pursuant to the statements made by AR of plaintiff as well as defendants no. 1 & 2, suit of the plaintiff was disposed off as settled/compromised qua defendants no.1 & 2. In view of the same, averments made by defendants no. 1 & 2 in their written statement are not referred to at length herein.
14. The defendant no.3 has filed his written statement, wherein it is stated that the present suit is not maintainable and the plaintiff failed to disclose any cogent and unforceable cause of action against him. In view of the foregoing facts and circumstances, it has been submitted that Plaintiff has failed to establish any cause of action, locus standi, territorial jurisdiction, CS (Comm.) No.358/2021 page 7 of 18 D.J.(Commercial Court)-01/Shahdara/KKD/Delhi sudesh Digitally signed by sudesh kumar Date: 2026.02.21 kumar 16:59:37 +0530 legal entitlement, or statutory compliance, and has approached the court without clean hands, suppressing material facts and documents. It is contended that the plaint is barred by the provisions of Order VII Rule 10 and 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, Section 20 CPC, and Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, and is liable to be rejected at the threshold. It is further contended that the Plaintiff has also failed to place on record any document evidencing incorporation, ownership of intellectual property rights, authorization to institute the suit, or any act giving rise to jurisdiction or cause of action within the territorial limits of this court. Plaintiff is not entitled to any relief whatsoever, including any discretionary or equitable relief. It is prayed that the suit of the plaint may be dismissed with exemplary costs.
15. No replication to the written statement of the defendant No.3 was filed on behalf of the plaintiff, but plaintiff has denied the contents of the written statement and has reiterated and reaffirmed the contents of the plaint, as correct.
16. As the present suit against the defendants No.1 & 2 has been disposed of as settled/compromised, vide order dated 12.08.2024, from the pleadings of the parties following issues were framed against defendant no.3, vide order dated 23.09.2024, as under :-
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree of permanent injunction against the defendant No.3, as claimed in the plaint ? OPP
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree of mandatory injuction, regarding delivery up of all Digitally signed sudesh by sudesh kumar kumar Date:
CS (Comm.) No.358/2021 page 8 of 18 D.J.(Commercial Court)-01/Shahdara/KKD/Delhi 2026.02.21 16:59:45 +0530 impugned finished and unfinished material, from the defendant No.3, as claimed in the plaint ? OPP
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to claim damages worth Rs.3,05,000/- from the defendant No.3, as prayed in the plaint ? OPP
4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree of rendition of account against defendant No.3, as claimed in the plaint ? OPP
5. Relief.
17. During the trial, plaintiff has examined its Authorized Representative Mr. Anand Arya as PW-1. The defendant No.3 has not examined any witness in his defence. The defendants No. 3 was subsequently proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 18.01.2025 due to his continuous non-appearance.
18. After completion of trial, final arguments were advanced by Sh. Somnath De and Sh. Abhishek Mavi, Ld. Counsels for the plaintiff. But, the defendant No.3 has failed to appear before the court and none has appeared on behalf of the defendant no.3 even to address the final arguments.
19. During the course of arguments, the Ld. counsel for the plaintiff has reiterated the contents of the plaint and has argued that the witness examined by the plaintiff has proved the case of the plaintiffs. It is stated that the plaintiff company is the owner of the trademark/label "Levi's" and the defendant has adopted the mark "LEVI'S" similar to the trademark/label of the plaintiff.
The defendant has copied the plaintiff's registered trade mark as a whole and has copied the essential and distinguishing features Digitally signed sudesh by sudesh kumar CS (Comm.) No.358/2021 page 9 of 18 kumar 2026.02.21 Date:
D.J.(Commercial Court)-01/Shahdara/KKD/Delhi 16:59:52 +0530 of the plaintiff's trademark, which amounts to infringement and passing off. Due to said act/activities of the defendant, the plaintiff is suffering huge loss in its business and reputation which are incapable of being assessed in monetary terms. However, the damages to the goodwill and reputation is irreparable and plaintiff quantify the same to the tune of Rs.3,07,200/-. It is submitted that the suit of the plaintiff may be decreed as prayed by the plaintiff in the plaint. Ld. Counsels for the plaintiff have also relied upon the following judgments in support of their contentions :
(i) 'American Home Products Corporation vs. Mac Laboratories Pvt. Ltd.', reported as, 'AIR 1986 SC 137';
(ii) 'Midas Hygiene Industries Pvt. Ltd. vs. Sudhir Bhatia', reported as, '2004 (73) DRJ 647 (SC)';
(iii) 'Century Traders vs. Roshan Lal Duggar', reported as, 'AIR 1978 DELHI 250';
(iv) 'Imagine Marketing Private Ltd. vs. Green Accessories', reported as, '2022 SCC OnLine Del 805';
(v) 'Whatman International Limited vs. P. Mehta and Others', reported as, '2019 SCC OnLine Del 6856';
(vi) 'Pankaj Rajivbhai Patel Trading vs. SSS Pharmachem Pvt.
Ltd.';
(v) 'Levi Strauss & CO. vs. Aman Ojha & Ors.'.
20. I have carefully perused the case file and I have also given my considered thoughts to the arguments addressed by the Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff. I have also perused the judgment cited by the Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff. My findings on the various issues are as under:
Issue No.1 & 2
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree of permanent injunction against the defendant No.3, as Digitally signed sudesh by sudesh kumar Date:
kumar 2026.02.21 CS (Comm.) No.358/2021 page 10 of 18 D.J.(Commercial Court)-01/Shahdara/KKD/Delhi 17:00:01 +0530 claimed in the plaint ? OPP
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree of mandatory injuction, regarding delivery up of all impugned finished and unfinished material, from the defendant No.3, as claimed in the plaint ? OPP
21. Since both these issues are interconnected, I deem it appropriate to decide both these issues together. Burden to prove these issues lies on the plaintiff and in order to prove the same, the plaintiff has examined its Authorized Representative Mr.Anand Arya as PW-1. He has reiterated the averments made in plaint, in his affidavit Ex.PW-1/A. He has relied upon following documents :-
Sr. Document Exhibit No.
No.
1 True representation of the said Ex.PW1/1 (Colly)
trademark/label of the plaintiff
2 Photographs of the impugned products Ex.PW1/2 (Colly.)
under the impugned trade Mark/Label of
the defendant
3 Analysis cum authentication report Ex.PW-1/3 (Colly.)
regarding impugned products under the
impugned trade Mark/Label of the
defendant
4 Status Registration certificates respective Ex.PW1/4 (Colly.)
pages of Trade Marks Journal showing
advertisement/publications of the
registered trademarks of the plaintiff's registered trademarks in India as mention in para 7 of plaint 5 Receipt regarding the Legal proceeding Ex.PW1/5 (Collly) certificates applied with respect to the plaintiff's registered trademarks mentioned in para no.7 6 Extracts of Annual report 2019 showing Ex.PW1/6 (Colly.) some financial details of the plaintiff company Digitally signed sudesh by sudesh kumar kumar 2026.02.21 Date:
CS (Comm.) No.358/2021 page 11 of 18 D.J.(Commercial Court)-01/Shahdara/KKD/Delhi 17:00:08 +0530
7 Advertisements of the plaintiff's Ex.PW-1/7 (Colly.) trademark/label 8 Documents showing the plaintiff's store/ Ex.PW-1/8 (Colly.) showroom within the jurisdiction of this court as well as availability on the plaintiff's website and online marketplace like Amazon, Flipkart 9 Power of Attorney in favour of Ex.PW1/9 constituted attorney 10 Certificate of incorporation of plaintiff's Ex.PW1/10 company 11 Screenshot of plaintiff's brand Ex.PW1/11 jeans/denims available at their website 12 Screenshot showing the presence of Ex.PW1/12 plaintiff's official store in the jurisdiction of this court 13 Report of local commissioner Ex.PW1/13 Sh.Abhishek Ruhela No other witness was examined on behalf of plaintiff.
22. PW-1 Sh. Anand Arya in his affidavit of evidence Ex.PW1/A has deposed that the trademarks alongwith various Levi's formatives and variants are registered under the provisions of Trademarks Act, 1999 and all the registrations are valid subsisting in favour of plaintiff. PW-1 further deposed that the copyrights involved in the plaintiff's trademark/label are original artistic works within the meaning of Indian Copyright Act 1957 and plaintiff is the owner and proprietor thereof. PW-1 proved the copy of list of plaintiff's company trademarks registration certificates as Ex.PW1/4 (colly). The documents showing the plaintiff's store/showroom within the jurisdiction of this court as well as availability on plaintiff's website and online marketplace like Amazon, Flipkart are proved Ex.PW1/8 (Colly). The report Digitally signed sudesh byDate:sudesh kumar kumar 2026.02.21 17:00:15 +0530 CS (Comm.) No.358/2021 page 12 of 18 D.J.(Commercial Court)-01/Shahdara/KKD/Delhi filed by the Ld. Local Commissioners has been filed on record as Ex.PW1/1/13 and it clearly shows the manufacturing/ trading of Levi's jeans which are replica of the trademark of the plaintiff and they copied the entire shape, colour scheme, placement of artistic work on the counterfeit goods as of the plaintiff company. Even otherwise, defendant has not claimed that he is dealing with these registered trademarks of the plaintiff with the leave and license of the plaintiff company.
23. Hon'ble Supreme Court in a case titled as, 'Misrilal Ramratan Mansukhlal vs. A. S. Shaik Fathimal', 1995 Supp. (4) SCC 600, has held as under :-
"It is now settled law that the report of the Commissioner is part of the record and that therefore the report cannot be overlooked or rejected on spacious plea of non-examination of Commissioner as a witness since of the record of the case".
24. Report of the Ld. Local Commissioner, Ex.PW1/13, shows that he visited the shop of defendant No.3 located at 44, Banarasi Das Building Main Road Gandhi Nagar, Delhi-110031 and met defendant no.3. He conducted search of the premises and found some shirts containing the plaintiff's logo and he seized 10 white Shirts containing plaintiffs company logo. The photographs of the goods and the premises and also recorded the video through mobile phone. Further, defendant no.3 was working for gain at Gandhi Nagar, Delhi, which falls within the territorial jurisdiction of this court.
25. In view of my findings that the plaintiff is the registered trademark owner of mark and "Levi's (Housemark)", CS (Comm.) No.358/2021 page 13 of 18 D.J.(Commercial Court)-01/Shahdara/KKD/Delhi "Two Horse Logo" and the "Arcuate Stitching Design" and defendant No.3 was storing counterfeit Levi's products having replica of registered trademark/copyright of artistic work of the plaintiff, plaintiff company is entitled for decree of permanent and mandatory injunction against Defendant no. 3 and his agents/representatives as prayed for.
Both these issues are decided accordingly in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant No.3.
Issues No.3 & 4
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to claim damages worth Rs.3,05,000/- from the defendant No.3, as prayed in the plaint ? OPP
4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree of rendition of account against defendant No.3, as claimed in the plaint ? OPP
28. Since both these issues are connected, I deem it appropriate to decide both these issues today. The burden to prove both these issues also lies on the plaintiff. The instant matter proceeded against defendants no.3 on basis of the report Ex. PW-1/13 (Colly), of Sh. Abhishek Ruhela, Ld. Local Commissioner. As per report of the Ld. Local Commissioner, ten white shirts containing plaintiff's logo were recovered and seized from the possession of defendant No.3. The plaintiff however has failed to examine Ld. Local Commissioner in P.E.
29. However, the report Ex. PW-2/1 submitted by Local CS (Comm.) No.358/2021 page 14 of 18 D.J.(Commercial Court)-01/Shahdara/KKD/Delhi Commissioner and perusal of the photographs of infringed goods annexed with it clearly reveals that defendant No.3 was dealing in infringed goods bearing trademark of the plaintiff.
30. In the present suit the plaintiff has prayed for punitive damages worth Rs.3,05,000/- for loss of its goodwill, reputation and business opportunity from defendants no. 1 to 3. As the plaintiff has already arrived at settlement with defendants no. 1 & 2 and received a settled amount of Rs.75,000/-, the claim for punitive damages only subsists against defendant no.3.
31. As already observed, the present suit qua defendants No.1 & 2 has been disposed of as settled/compromised, vide order dated 13.08.2024. Defendant No.3 however, has filed his written statement and thereafter, failed to appear before the court and he was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 18.01.2025.
32. For the purposes of damages plaintiff has relied upon the inventory prepared by the Local Commissioner. The PW-1 Sh. Narender Singh, AR of plaintiff has not given calculation of damages with regard to the products seized from the possession of the defendant No.3.
33. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances, quantum of recovery of infringed goods as well as the quantum of money for which plaintiff had settled the matter with defendants no. 1 & 2 and in view of the report of the Ld. Local Commissioner regarding quantum of seizure, this court is of the considered opinion that the plaintiff company is entitled for damages to the tune of Rs.50,000/- against defendant No.3, along Digitally signed sudesh by sudesh kumar kumar Date:
2026.02.21 17:04:05 +0530 CS (Comm.) No.358/2021 page 15 of 18 D.J.(Commercial Court)-01/Shahdara/KKD/Delhi cost of the suit and fee of local commissioner.
34. For the purposes of rendition of accounts/damages plaintiff has relied upon the inventory prepared by the Local Commissioner. PW-1 has not deposed anything about the rendition of accounts. From the averments made in the plaint, it is stated that in the first week of September 2021, pursuant to market survey during which it came to the knowledge of plaintiff that defendant is engaged in storing/selling/marketing/ distributing products of plaintiff under falsified "Levi's marks". The price of the infringing product/pair of jeans has not been given. There is nothing mentioned in the report of the Local Commissioner or the affidavit of PW1/Sh.Anand Arya nor has plaintiff placed on record any other document from which it can be ascertained as to what was the price at which defendant No.3 was selling each of the infringed goods bearing "Levi's marks". Apparently no books of account or invoices or any other document was seized from the premises of the defendant, during the visit by the Local Commissioner. Further, there is no document on record from which figures of sales made by defendant No.3 in a day or a week or in a month can be ascertained. The plaintiff has also not mentioned the price at which it was selling the original product but considering the averment in the plaint that defendant were selling identical and/or deceptively or confusing similar products, it can be safely concluded that the infringing goods must have been sold at comparatively lesser price than the original products of the plaintiff. In view of aforesaid discussion, issue No.4 is decided Digitally signed sudesh by sudesh kumar kumar 2026.02.21 Date:
17:03:19 +0530 CS (Comm.) No.358/2021 page 16 of 18 D.J.(Commercial Court)-01/Shahdara/KKD/Delhi against the plaintiff.
In these circumstances, both these issues are decided accordingly.
Relief
35. In view of finding/observations on the various issued, as above, the plaintiff is entitled for decree of permanent injunction against defendant No.3. Accordingly, the defendant No.3, his associates and agents, employees, manufacturers, distributors, franchisee, representatives and assigns are restrained from using the trademark and "Levi's (Housemark)", "Two Horse Logo" and the "Arcuate Stitching Design" and/or any other trademark and logos deceptively and confusingly similar to the registered trademarks and logos of the plaintiff company on any apparels including jeans, t-shirts and other accessories thereby infringing plaintiff's registered trademark.
36. A decree of mandatory injunction is also passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant No.3, for delivery up of all impugned finished and unfinished materials bearing the and "Levi's (Housemark)", "Two Horse Logo"
and the "Arcuate Stitching Design" and violative trademark/label or any other word/mark which may be identical with or deceptively and confusingly similar to the plaintiffs trade mark/label/trade name including its blocks, labels, display boards, sign boards, trade literature and goods etc. The defendant No.3, his associates and agents, employees, distributors, CS (Comm.) No.358/2021 page 17 of 18 D.J.(Commercial Court)-01/Shahdara/KKD/Delhi sudesh Digitally signed by sudesh kumar Date: 2026.02.21 kumar 17:03:27 +0530 representatives are restrained from passing off his goods and business as that of the goods and business of the plaintiff by using the trademark and copyright "Levi's marks" and other registered trademarks of plaintiff on shoes and other accessories in any form and manner and/or trademarks identical and/or confusingly or deceptively similar to the trademark "Levi's marks".
37. A decree of damages to the tune of Rs.50,000/- is also passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant No.3.
Costs of the suit are also awarded in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant No.3.
Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
File be consigned to record room, after due compliance.
Digitally signedAnnounced in the open Court sudesh by sudesh kumar on this 21st Day of February, 2026 kumar Date:
2026.02.21 17:03:05 +0530 SUDESH KUMAR District Judge (Commercial Court)-01 Shahdara Distt, KKD, Delhi CS (Comm.) No.358/2021 page 18 of 18 D.J.(Commercial Court)-01/Shahdara/KKD/Delhi