Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi High Court - Orders

Yves Saint Laurent vs Brompton Lifestyle Brands Private ... on 15 November, 2022

Author: Navin Chawla

Bench: Navin Chawla

               $~22
               *        IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
               +        CS(COMM) 789/2022
                        YVES SAINT LAURENT                               ..... Plaintiff
                                     Through:            Mr.Akhil Sibal, Sr. Adv., with
                                                         Mr.Nirupam Lodha, Ms.Shivangi
                                                         Narang, Mr.Gautam Wadhwa,
                                                         Ms.Asavari Jain and Ms.Sanya,
                                                         Advs.
                                           versus

                        BROMPTON LIFESTYLE BRANDS PRIVATE LIMITED &
                        ANR.                               .....Defendants
                                     Through: None
                        CORAM:
                        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA
                                           ORDER

% 15.11.2022 I.A.18603/2022 (exemption)

1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2. This is an application seeking exemption from making advance service of the suit paperbook on the defendants.

3. It is alleged that the said service has not been made as it is apprehended that the defendants may, on service of the notice, dispose of or sell the goods being manufactured under the Impugned Trade Marks.

4. Having considered the contents of the application, the same is allowed. The plaintiff is exempted from making an advance service of the suit paperbook on the defendants.

5. The application stands disposed of.

6. This is an application filed on behalf of the plaintiff seeking leave to file additional documents which are not in the power, possession, control or custody of the plaintiff at the moment.

7. The plaintiff may file the additional documents strictly in accordance with the provisions of the law.

8. The application stands disposed of.

9. This application has been filed seeking exemption from filing pre- institution mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.

10. Having perused the contents of the application, the same is allowed.

11. The application stands disposed of.

CS(COMM) 789/2022

12. Let the plaint be registered as a suit.

13. Issue summons to the defendants to be served through all permitted modes, including electronically, returnable on 15th February, 2023 before the learned Joint Registrar (Judicial).

14. The summons to the defendant(s) shall indicate that the written statement(s) to the plaint shall be positively filed within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of summons. Along with the written statement(s), the defendant(s) shall also file the affidavit(s) of admission/denial of the documents of the plaintiff, without which the written statement(s) shall not be taken on record.

15. Liberty is given to the plaintiff to file a replication(s) within a period of 15 days of the receipt of the written statement(s). Along with the replication(s), if any, filed by the plaintiff, the affidavit(s) of admission/denial of documents of the defendant(s) be filed by the plaintiff, without which the replication(s) shall not be taken on record. If any of the parties wish to seek inspection of any documents, the same shall be sought and given within the timelines.

16. Issue Notice.

17. On the plaintiff taking steps, let notice be served on the defendants through all permissible modes, including electronically, returnable on 29th November, 2022.

18. Let reply to the application be filed by the defendants within a period of one week of receipt of notice. Rejoinder thereto, if any, be filed within a period of one week thereafter. The parties shall strictly comply with the time lines for filing of the pleadings.

19. It is the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff is the owner of the registered marks „Yves Saint Laurent‟, „YSL‟, „Saint Laurent‟, and variations thereof. The plaintiff is a part of the global Luxury group, „Kering‟, a multi-national group which inter alia owns the businesses relating to the luxury brands Balenciaga, Bottega Veneta, Gucci, Alexander McQueen and Saint Laurent. It is currently operating around 270 stores across the world.

20. It had entered into a Franchise Agreement dated 19.04.2019 with Beverly Luxury Brands Limited, defendant no.2 herein, granting a franchise to defendant no.2 to open and operate "Saint Laurent" boutique at the premises at DLF Chanakya Mall, Delhi, with a clear stipulation that the defendant no.2 shall not have any right to sub-licence/transfer the Franchise Agreement to any third party. The Franchise Agreement was terminated by the plaintiff vide Notice dated 23.07.2021. The defendant no.2 has not challenged the said termination. However, the plaintiff received a Notice dated 22.02.2022 from the defendant no.1 claiming itself to be a sub-franchise of the defendant no.2. Such invocation has been challenged by the plaintiff by corresponding with the defendant no.1 as also with the Arbitrator appointed by the defendant no.1.

21. The learned senior counsel for the plaintiff submits that the defendant no.1 has no right to use the marks of the plaintiff and that the plaintiff has no privity of contract with the defendant no.1.

22. As admittedly, the defendant no.1 has invoked the purported Arbitration Agreement vide Notice dated 22.02.2022, it is deemed appropriate that the relief sought by the plaintiff in the present application be considered in the presence of the defendant no.1.

23. By this application, the plaintiff prays for the appointment of a Local Commissioner to visit the premises located at Shop No.G-5A, Ground floor, The Chanakya, Yashwant Place Commercial Complex, Opposite Chanakyapuri Post Office, Chanakyapuri, New Delhi-110021, and any storage area connected therewith.

24. Having considered the averments in the application and also the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:RENUKA NEGI Signing Date:28.11.2022 17:20:06 submissions of the learned senior counsel for the plaintiff as recorded hereinabove, I am of the opinion that the plaintiff has been able to make out a case for appointment of a Local Commissioner, especially when it is alleged that the defendants may, in order to frustrate any order that may be passed against them, dispose of the infringing goods. The Local Commissioner also deserves to be appointed in order to ascertain the position as it prevails today in the above-mentioned premises.

25. Accordingly, I appoint Ms.Suditi Batra, Advocate, Enrol. ID:

D/2536/2017, Mob. No. 9953908812 as a Local Commissioner to visit the above-mentioned premises of the defendants and to carry out the following activities:

(i) to make an inventory of all goods and material being marketed and sold from the said premises, detailing the trademarks affixed to each such product and material;

(ii) to make copy/notes of books of accounts including ledgers, cash books, bill books, and all other relevant documents discovered from the premises; the defendant no.1 is directed to give the Local Commissioner access to the computer systems which contain the accounts of the defendant no.1. If the computer has any passwords, the password shall also be provided to the Local Commissioner, who shall be at liberty to procure the information in a 'pen drive' and submit the same before this Court:

(iii) to take photograph and/or make video recording of the store and impugned products and submit Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:RENUKA NEGI Signing Date:28.11.2022 17:20:06 the same before this Court;

(iv) to break open locks in case of resistance;

26. The Local Commissioner shall be at liberty to seek police assistance and protection, if required, to execute this order, and the SHO of the concerned area is directed to provide immediate assistance to the Local Commissioner upon request.

27. In order to assist the Local Commissioner to execute this Commission, two counsels and one representative of the plaintiff are permitted to accompany him.

28. The fee of the Local Commissioner is fixed at Rs.1,00,000 (Rupees One Lakh only), apart from any out-of-pocket expenses that may be incurred by the Local Commissioner, to be paid by the plaintiff at the first instance.

29. The Local Commissioner shall file his Report before the next date of hearing.

30. The application is allowed in the above terms.

31. This order may not be uploaded on the website of the Delhi High Court for a period of one week.

32. Dasti to the counsel for the plaintiff.

NAVIN CHAWLA, J NOVEMBER 15, 2022/s Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:RENUKA NEGI Signing Date:28.11.2022 17:20:06