Delhi District Court
Levi Strauss And Company vs Salman And Anr on 29 March, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. AJAY PANDEY
DISTRICT JUDGE (COMMERCIAL COURT-10) CENTRAL,
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
CS Comm 512/2024
Levi Strauss & Company
1155 Battery Street, San Francisco
State of California
United States of America
Through
Anand Arya @ Anand Kumar
House No. 15, Khizarabad,
Taimoor Nagar,
New Delhi-110025 Plaintiff
Vs
Sh. Salman
S/o Imamuddin
Brother Company
Building No. 17/8,
Anand Parbat Industrial Area,
New Rohtak Road,
Near Zakhira Flyover,
New Delhi
Also At :-
C-316, Gali no.11,
Shriram Colony, Khajoori,
Dayalpur,
North East Delhi-110094 Defendant no.1
Sh. Jagdish Chand
S/o Sh. Suraj Bhan
Building No. 6/57,
Levi Strauss & Company Vs Salman & Anr. Page no. 1 of 21
CS Comm 512/24
Digitally signed
AJAY by AJAY PANDEY
PANDEY Date: 2025.03.29
15:26:13 +0530
Opp Nand Gopal Trading Company,
Gali No.6
Anand Parbat Industrial Area,
New Rohtak Road,
Near Zakhira Flyover, New Delhi
Also At :-
House No. 4/2,
New Rohtak Road,
Harija Bhasti,
Karol Bagh, Central Delhi-110005 Defendant no.2
Date of Institution : 25.04.2024
Date of Arguments : 26.03.2025
Date of Judgment : 29.03.2025
JUDGMENT:-
SUIT UNDER SECTION 134, 135, 29 & 27 OF TRADEMARKS ACT 1999; SECTION 55 OF COPYRIGHT ACT, 1957 FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION RESTRAINING INFRINGEMENT OF TRADEMARKS & COPYRIGHT; PASSING-OFF; DAMAGES, DELIVERY UP ETC.
1. The present suit for permanent injunction, restraining infringement of trademark and copyright, passing off damages and rendition of accounts has been filed by plaintiff through its authorized representative Sh. Anand Arya. It is inter-alia stated in the plaint that plaintiff is duly registered under the laws of California, United States of America having its registered office at 1155 Battery Street, San Francisco, State of California, Levi Strauss & Company Vs Salman & Anr. Page no. 2 of 21 CS Comm 512/24 Digitally signed AJAY by AJAY PANDEY PANDEY Date: 2025.03.29 15:26:22 +0530 U.S.A. Mr. Anand Arya is the Constituted Attorney of the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff company is engaged in the business of manufacture and marketing of clothing of all kinds, readymade garments and clothing including its iconic jeans, and leisure shoes, Belts, wallets, Spectacle Glasses, Sunglasses, Bags and other accessories under the Trademark/Label and other Trademarks/label. The Plaintiff Company is owner of trademark/label and (House mark), MISCELLENEOUS DESIGN [BATWING# 1] "Two Horse logo" , , MISCELLENEOUS DESIGN [BATWING# 2] and the "Arcuate Stitching Design".
2. The details of trademarks alongwith class and registration number of plaintiff are mentioned in para no. 7 of the plaint as follows:-
Mark Applicati Class Status Date of Valid Disclaim (Profile on no. registration Upto er Name) 851936 25 Registered 19/04/20 19/04/1999 29 No Levi Strauss & Company Vs Salman & Anr. Page no. 3 of 21 CS Comm 512/24 Digitally signed AJAY by AJAY PANDEY PANDEY Date: 2025.03.29 15:26:34 +0530 3786363 25 Registered 23.03.2018 23/03/20 no 28 3569457 25 Registered 13.06.2017 13/06/20 No 27 290954 25 Registered 18/09/20 18/09/1973 28 No 851935 18 Registered 19/04/1999 19/04/20 No 29 LEVI'S 851933 25 Registered 13/06/2003 19/04/20 No 26 382357 25 Registered 23/10/198 23/10/20 No 1 29
3. It is further stated that the said trademark/lables of the plaintiff are valid and subsisting in full force. The plaintiff has exclusive right to use the said trademarks with respect to its goods in the classes stated above and no one is entitled to use the said trademarks or any deceptively similar trademark in respect of the goods. It is further stated that plaintiff has spent huge amount of money in advertising and promotion of its products under the said trademarks.
4. It is further stated that defendants are engaged in the manufacturing, wholesale distribution of and are using, selling, soliciting and trading garments, Levi Strauss & Company Vs Salman & Anr. Page no. 4 of 21 CS Comm 512/24 Digitally signed AJAY by AJAY PANDEY PANDEY Date: 2025.03.29 15:31:35 +0530 readymade garments, clothes, tags/lables. The defendants have adopted and started using the impugned trademarks of plaintiff and are also using the said trademark in order to give a false description to its impugned goods. The defendants imitated the entire shape, colour scheme, manner and placement of literary and artistic work on the impugned goods. It is further stated that defendants have no right to use the impugned marks/lables or any mark which is identical to/or deceptively similar to the trademarks of plaintiff.
5. It is further stated that as early as in the first week of April, 2024 the plaintiff came across impugned products of the defendants in the markets of Delhi District. Being aggrieved, plaintiff caused an inquiry in the market, which revealed that the defendants have adopted and started using and soliciting the impugned Trade Mark/Label in relation to their impugned goods in the markets of Central Delhi viz. Karol Bagh, Paharganj and adjoining areas etc. The plaintiff also learnt that the defendant is carrying on its impugned activities under the impugned Trade Mark/Label in a clandestine and surreptitious manner and that too without issuing formal sale bills. Defendant is not only making the retail sales but is also supplying the impugned goods bearing the impugned Trade Mark/Label to various other dealers/shopkeepers/retailers including in Delhi area namely in the markets of Central Delhi viz. Karol Bagh, Levi Strauss & Company Vs Salman & Anr. AJAY Digitally signed by AJAY PANDEY Page no. 5 of 21 CS Comm 512/24 PANDEY Date: 2025.03.29 15:26:49 +0530 Paharganj and adjoining areas etc. who are making the clandestine and surreptitious sales thereof to the unscrupulous traders and manufacturers of the counterfeit products of the plaintiff's under the said Trade Mark/Label in the markets of Delhi and adjoining areas.
6. It is submitted on behalf of plaintiff that defendant no.1 is selling impugned goods and business under the impugned trade mark/label at Building No. 17/8, Anand Prabat Industrial Area, New Rohtak Road, Near Zakhira Flyover, New Delhi and defendant no.2 at Building No. 6/57, Opp. Nand Gopal Trading Company, Gali No.6, Anand Prabat Industrial Area, New Rohtak Road, New Delhi.
7. A comparison chart depicting the degree of resemblance between the defendant's impugned stock and the plaintiff's stock are mentioned in para no.30 of the plaint which are as follows:-
Plaintiff's said trademark Defendant's impugned and Labels trademark label Levi Strauss & Company Vs Salman & Anr. Page no. 6 of 21 CS Comm 512/24 Digitally signed by AJAY AJAY PANDEY PANDEY Date: 2025.03.29 15:26:57 +0530
8. It is further stated that due to the impugned activities of the defendants, plaintiff is suffering huge losses both in business and reputation and such losses are incapable of being assessed in monetary terms. Hence, this suit for permanent injunction, infringement of trademark and copyright, passing off and damages.
9. Along with the suit an application under order 26 rule 9 CPC was also filed. Vide order dated 29.04.2024 the said application was allowed and learned local commissioner was appointed to seize and seal the impugned goods from the premises of the defendants. The local commissioner visited the property of the Levi Strauss & Company Vs Salman & Anr. Page no. 7 of 21 CS Comm 512/24 Digitally signed AJAY by AJAY PANDEY PANDEY Date: 2025.03.29 15:27:06 +0530 defendants and seized the impugned goods from the premises of the defendant, which were seized and released on superdari to the defendant.
10. Both the defendants no.1 and 2 were served with the summons of suit. Defendant no.2 put his appearance and filed his written statement. However, neither any written statement was filed nor anyone appeared on behalf of defendant no.1 and vide order dated 21.08.2024, defendant no.1 was proceeded ex-parte.
11. Defendant no.2 in his written statement took preliminary objections that the suit has not been filed in proper name of the defendant and has been filed by impleading Sh. Ashok Kumar as defendants; that plaint is not maintainable as the same does not disclose any just, cogent and enforceable cause of action against the defendant no.2; that plaintiff has concocted a false story; that plaintiff has not approached the court with clean hands; that plaint is liable to be dismissed under order VII rule 11 CPC.
12. In para-wise reply on merits, it is denied that Sh.
Anand Arya is the attorney of plaintiff and has been authorized by plaintiff to sign and verify the pleadings. It is further denied that plaintiff company is engaged in the business of manufacturing and marketing of all kinds of readymade garments and clothing etc. under the trademark/label. It is stated that present suit is liable to be dismissed as plaintiff has filed the present suit in the Levi Strauss & Company Vs Salman & Anr. Digitally signed Page no. 8 of 21 CS Comm 512/24 AJAY by AJAY PANDEY PANDEY Date: 2025.03.29 15:27:13 +0530 name of Ashok Kumar. It is further stated that plaintiff is liable to be prosecuted under section 379 of BNSS for deliberately swearing a false affidavit and that the plaintiff has not valued the suit as per Valuation Act.
13. Defendant no.2 has denied that trademark registrations as mentioned in para no.7 of the plaint are pertaining to plaintiff and are valid. It is further denied that plaintiff company has the exclusive right to use the trademarks mentioned in the plaint. The defendant no.2 has further denied the averments made in the plaint and dismissal of the suit is prayed.
14. During pendency of proceedings the plaintiff and defendant no.2 settled the matter in mediation cell. Vide order dated 28.01.2025, statement of parties was recorded separately and suit was decreed against the defendant no.2 as per the terms and conditions in mediation settlement Ex.P1.
15. In support of the petition, affidavit in evidence of AR of plaintiff Sh. Anand Arya was filed. He was examined as PW-1. In his testimony he proved following documents :-
(i)Ex.PW1/1 is true representation of plaintiff's said trademark/labels
(ii)Ex.PW1/2 is representation of the plaintiff's trademark/labels on products.
(iii)Ex.PW1/3 is representation of defendant's impugned trademarks/labels on impugned products.
Levi Strauss & Company Vs Salman & Anr. Digitally signed Page no. 9 of 21 CS Comm 512/24 AJAY by AJAY PANDEY PANDEY Date: 2025.03.29 15:27:18 +0530
(iv)Ex.PW1/4 is comparison chart.
(v)Ex.PW1/5 is copies of status page, registration certificate and journal copy of plaintiff's trademark under application no.851933.
(vi)Ex.PW1/6 is copies of status page, registration certificate and journal copy of the plaintiff's trademark under Application no.851936.
(vii)Ex.PW1/7 is copies of status page, registration certificate and journal copy of the plaintiff's trademark under application no.3786363.
(viii)Ex.PW1/8 is copies of status page, registration certificate and journal copy of the plaintiff's trademark under application no.3569457.
(ix)Ex.PW1/9 is copies of status page, registration certificate and journal copy of the plaintiff's trademark under application no.290954.
(x)Ex.PW1/10 is copies of status page, registration certificate and journal copy of the plaintiff's trademark under application no.851932.
(xi)Ex.PW1/11 is copies of status page, registration certificate and journal copy of the plaintiff's trademark under application no.2453983.
(xii)Ex.PW1/12 is copies of status page, registration certificate and journal copy of the plaintiff's trademark under application no.3626997.
(xiii)Ex.PW1/13 is copies of status page, registration certificate and journal copy of the plaintiff's Levi Strauss & Company Vs Salman & Anr. Page no. 10 of 21 CS Comm 512/24 Digitally signed AJAY by AJAY PANDEY PANDEY Date: 2025.03.29 15:27:26 +0530 trademark under application no.3626998.
(xiv)Ex.PW1/14 (colly. Page no.43-46 and 49-50) is Legal Proceeding Certificate of some of the plaintiff's trademark and labels. (OSR)
(xv)Ex.PW1/15 is copy of Analysis-cum- Authentication report.
(xvi)Ex.PW1/16 is copy of plaintiff's consolidated financial statements for the year 2021.
(xvii)Ex.PW1/17 is documents of news articles pertaining to the plaintiff in relation to its trademarks/labels.
(xviii)Ex.PW1/18 is document showing endorsements of plaintiff by various popular celebrities.
(xix)Ex.PW1/19 is screenshots of plaintiff's website depicting use of its trademarks/labels.
(xx)Ex.PW1/20 is copy of WHOIS report of plaintiff's registered domain name.
(xxi)Ex.PW1/21 is screen shots of third-party e- commerce website showing availability of plaintiff's goods under its trademarks/labels.
(xxii)Ex.PW1/22 is screen shots depicting social media presence of the plaintiff on several plateforms viz., Facebook, Instagram, Youtube, Twitter etc. pertaining to its trademarks/labels.
(xxiii)Ex.PW1/23 (OSR) is copy of power of attorney executed in favour of constituted attorney.
(xxiv)Ex.PW1/24 is Local Commissioner Report.
Levi Strauss & Company Vs Salman & Anr. AJAY Digitally signed by
AJAY PANDEY Page no. 11 of 21
CS Comm 512/24 PANDEY Date: 2025.03.29
15:27:34 +0530
(xxv)Ex.PW1/25 is affidavit in compliance of Order XI Rule 6 (3) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
16. Arguments on behalf of plaintiff were addressed by learned Sh. Himanshu Choudhary, Advocate.
17. The court has considered arguments addressed on behalf of plaintiff and has gone through the material and evidence available on record.
18. In the written statement of defendant no.2, a plea was taken that the suit has not been filed in proper name of the defendant and has been filed by impleading Sh. Ashok Kumar as defendants. It is rightly submitted by learned Sh. Himanshu Choudhary that initially the plaintiff filed John Doe suit. The plaintiff was not aware of the exact name and particulars of the defendants. Hence, the plaintiff had filed a John Doe suit by making fictitious persons 'Ashok Kumar' as defendants. It is established fact from catena of judgments that it may be really difficult for the plaintiff to know exact particulars of the person(s) violating its trademark. Hence, filing of suit in the name of fictitious persons 'Ashok Kumar' or 'John Doe' or any other name is permitted when the correct particulars of defendant are not know to plaintiff. Hon'ble Delhi High Court in many such cases has granted relief against unknown defendants. Reliance in this respect is placed upon in the case of Arha Media and Digitally signed Levi Strauss & Company Vs Salman & Anr. AJAY by AJAY PANDEY Page no. 12 of 21 CS Comm 512/24 PANDEY Date: 2025.03.29 15:27:41 +0530 Broadcasting Pvt Ltd Vs WWW.Vcinema.com, CS (COMM) 925/22, wherein Hon'ble High Court held as under :-
15. Accordingly, till the next date of hearing an ex parte ad-interim injunction is granted thereby restraining the Defendants (including John Does), their owners, partners, proprietors, officers, servants, employees and all others in capacity of principal or agent acting for and on their behalf or anyone claiming through by or under it, from in any manner hosting, streaming, broadcasting, re-transmitting, exhibiting, making available for viewing and downloading, providing access to and communicating to the public, displaying, uploading, modifying, publishing, updating and/or sharing (including to its subscribers and users) on their websites, through the internet, or in any manner or platform whatsoever, the Plaintiff's talk show series titled 'Unstoppable' season 1 and season 2 or any other future seasons thereof, and/or any part thereof and/or any content related thereto and/or all future works derived from the said web-series (including any future formats made for exhibiting on the Metaverse), amounting to an infringement of the Plaintiff's Copyright and/or Broadcast Reproduction Rights in the said talk-show series.
16. Department of Telecommunication (DoT) and the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology Levi Strauss & Company Vs Salman & Anr. AJAY Digitally signed by AJAY PANDEY Page no. 13 of 21 CS Comm 512/24 PANDEY Date: 2025.03.29 15:27:49 +0530 (MeitY) are also directed to direct the Internet Service Providers (ISPs) registered with them, to pull down all infringing links as provided by the Plaintiff at pages 599 to 605 of the List of Documents dated 27th December, 2022 (annexed as Annexure A hereto).
17. DoT and the MeitY are also directed to direct the various Internet Service Providers (ISPs) and Telecom Service providers registered with them to immediately block access to the various rogue.
websites, as identified by the Plaintiff at pages 606 to 610 of the List of Documents dated 27th December, 2022 (annexed as Annexure B hereto), which allegedly host infringing content.
18. DoT and the MeitY are directed to direct the various Internet Service Providers and Telecom Service providers registered with them, to provide to the Plaintiff, if so requested by the Plaintiff, with the complete details of the rogue websites, including but not limited to Name, Address, Email Address, Phone Number, IP Address, etc., so as to enable the Plaintiff to implead the said websites as Defendants.
19. In the case of Reliance Big Entertainment Ltd Vs Jyoti Cable Network and Ors., I.A. No. 11242/2011, decided on 20.07.2011, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi held "8. In the facts of this case as detailed above, in my view plaintiff has succeeded in making a prima facie Levi Strauss & Company Vs Salman & Anr. Page no. 14 of 21 CS Comm 512/24 AJAY Digitally signed by AJAY PANDEY PANDEY Date: 2025.03.29 15:28:00 +0530 case in its favour. Plaintiff has has exclusive copyright over the film 'Singham' which is yet to be released. In case, CD, DVD, Blue-ray, VCD are made by unidentified persons and distributed and shown on cable TV, DTH, internet, MMS, Tapes and CAS, plaintiff will indubitably suffer irreparable loss and injury. For the forgoing reasons, defendants and other unnamed and undisclosed persons, are restrained from communicating or making available or distributing, or duplicating, or displaying, or releasing, or showing, or uploading, or downloading, or exhibiting, or playing, and/or defraying the movie 'Singham' in any manner without proper license from the plaintiff or in any other manner which would violate/infringe the plaintiff's copyright in the said cinematograph film 'Singham' through different mediums like CD, DVD, Blue-ray, VCD, Cable TV, DTH, Internet, MMS, Tapes, Conditional Access System or in any other like manner."
20. In the case of M/S Sandisk Corporation vs Ramjee & Ors., CS (OS) 3205/2014, decided on 04.05.2017, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi held as under :-
5. On 17.10.2014, an ex parte ad interim injunction had been granted in favour of the plaintiff and against the unknown defendants restraining them from manufacturing, selling, offering for sale, advertising, Levi Strauss & Company Vs Salman & Anr. Page no. 15 of 21 Digitally signed AJAY by AJAY PANDEY CS Comm 512/24 PANDEY Date: 2025.03.29 15:28:06 +0530 directly or indirectly, dealing in counterfeit products, which are identical to the plaintiff's trademark 'SanDisk' and logo marks and the 'Red Frame' Logo, with identical product packaging, product get-up, colour scheme, layout, overall look and feel as that being used by the plaintiff. Also, three local commissioners were appointed to visit the make-shift locations in order to seize the counterfeit products and also to identify the infringers.
10. Accordingly, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed and by way of the permanent injunction, the defendants, their partners, proprietors, servants and agents and all others acting for and on their behalf are restrained from manufacturing, selling, offering for sale, advertising, directly or indirectly dealing in products identical to the products bearing the plaintiff's trademark 'SanDisk' and 'SanDisk logo' and the 'Red Frame' logo, with identical product packaging, product get-up, colour scheme, layout, overall look and feel as that being used by the plaintiff and from passing off their goods as those of the Plaintiff and also which infringe the plaintiff's copyright in the artistic work comprised in the SanDisk product packaging, the 'Red Frame' Logo, color scheme, product layout or any substantial part thereof.
11. The defendants are also directed to destroy all the infringing goods, advertising material, blocks, dies etc bearing the plaintiff's mark and the product literature Levi Strauss & Company Vs Salman & Anr. Digitally signed Page no. 16 of 21 AJAY by AJAY PANDEY CS Comm 512/24 PANDEY Date: 2025.03.29 15:28:12 +0530 appearing on its packaging.
21. Furthermore after execution of local commissioner, plaintiff filed an application under order 1 Rule 10 of The Code of Civil Procedure and correct particulars of defendants were mentioned in memo of parties.
22. As per the plaint, report of the local commissioner and unrebutted testimony of plaintiff, it is established on record that defendant no.1 was having infringed goods at his shop, which were seized by learned local commissioner and were released to the defendant on superdari. The testimony of plaintiff and the report of the local commissioner remains unrebutted. The plaintiff has proved that the defendant has infringed the trademark of the plaintiff and the plaintiff has proved through documents that plaintiff is the owner of the registered trademark "Levi's" trademarks/logos/labels. Hence plaintiff is entitled to grant of permanent injunction for restraining the defendant from using Levi's Marks and/or any other trademark and logos deceptively and confusingly similar to the said trademark and logos of the plaintiff company.
23. Further finished impugned goods, impugned tags, impugned pockets, unfinished impugned goods, cash memo/order books/bill books etc. bearing the falsified mark of the plaintiff's company were seized from the Levi Strauss & Company Vs Salman & Anr. Digitally signed Page no. 17 of 21 CS Comm 512/24 AJAY by AJAY PANDEY PANDEY Date: 2025.03.29 15:28:19 +0530 premises of the defendant no.1. The goods were seized from the commercial premises of the defendant no.1 which suggest that the goods were kept for the purpose of trade and commerce. Hence, the plaintiff is also entitled for destruction of the goods seized by the learned Local Commissioner on 01.05.2024.
24. In addition to other reliefs, plaintiff has sought a decree for damages or in the alternative rendition of accounts by defendant for the profits received by selling infringing goods of the plaintiff company. Since defendant no.1 has not rendered any account of profits, the relief of rendition of accounts is liable to be rejected. However, considering that defendant no.1 was selling the goods with falsified logo/labels of the plaintiff and has stored finished impugned goods, impugned tags, impugned pockets, unfinished impugned goods, cash memo/order books/bill books etc. for the said purpose, this court is of the opinion that the plaintiff is entitled for damages considering the quantum of counterfeit products which were seized from the premises of the defendant no.1. Such opinion of the court is in consonance with the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi passed on 21.03.2022 in Imaging Marketing Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s. Green Accessories through its proprietor and Anr. passed in CS (Comm.) 564/2020, reported in 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 235, wherein Hon'ble High Court held as under:-
Levi Strauss & Company Vs Salman & Anr. AJAY Digitally signed by AJAY PANDEY Page no. 18 of 21 CS Comm 512/24 PANDEY Date: 2025.03.29 15:28:27 +0530
12. Since the Defendants have not appeared and rendered any accounts of profits, the said relief as sought in paragraph 30(d) is rejected. Insofar as the relief of delivering up as sought in paragraph 30(e) is concerned, the Plaintiff or a representative thereof, is permitted to visit the premises of Defendant No.1 and Defendant No.6, upon which the Defendant Nos.1 and 6 shall handover all the seized products to the representatives of the Plaintiff for the purpose of destruction.
13. Insofar as the relief of damages as sought in paragraph 30(f) is concerned, it is clear to this Court that the Defendants have blatantly infringed the trademark and logos as also the packaging of the Plaintiff's products. Considering the quantum of counterfeit products which was seized from Defendant No.1 and Defendant No.6, the suit is decreed against the Defendant No.1 for a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs, and against the Defendant No. 6 for a sum of Rs.10 lakhs. Since no products were found in the premises of Defendant No.3, no monetary damages are being imposed on the said Defendant. Let the said amounts be paid to the Plaintiff within two weeks.
25. Plaintiff has valued its suit for rendition of accounts at Rs.3,10,000/-, considering the quantity of counterfeit product the amount of Rs.3,00,000/- seems to be reasonable and the plaintiff is entitled for decree of Levi Strauss & Company Vs Salman & Anr. Digitally signed Page no. 19 of 21 CS Comm 512/24 AJAY by AJAY PANDEY PANDEY Date: 2025.03.29 15:28:34 +0530 damages for Rs.3,00,000.
26. In the facts and circumstances, suit of the plaintiff is decreed against the defendant no.1. Defendant no.1 by itself/themselves as also through his/their individual proprietors/partners, agents, representatives, distributors, assigns, heirs, successors, stockists and all others acting for and on their behalf from soliciting, networking, importing, exporting, manufacturing, marketing, using, selling displaying, advertising, purveying, intending to sell/solicit or on online marketplaces or online websites or through social medias or by any other mode or manner dealing in or using the impugned trade mark/label impugned trademark and LEVI'S or any other /trade Mark/Label which may be identical with and/or deceptively similar to the Plaintiff's said Trade Mark/Label , and LEVI'S in relation to their impugned goods and business of using, trading, selling, manufacturing, marketing etc. of garments, readymade garments, clothes, tags/labels for garments, sports related goods, sports related clothings, and other allied/related products from doing any other acts or deeds amounting to or likely to:
a) Infringement of plaintiff company's aforesaid registered trademarks/labels;
Levi Strauss & Company Vs Salman & Anr. Page no. 20 of 21 CS Comm 512/24 AJAY Digitally signed by AJAY PANDEY PANDEY Date: 2025.03.29 15:28:42 +0530
b) Passing off their goods as that of the plaintiff company's and in violation of the plaintiff company's rights in its said trademarks/labels;
c) Infringement of copyright in the artwork of the said trademarks/labels.
27. The defendant no.1 is also directed by way of mandatory injunction, to hand over or deliver all the seized products, seized by the learned Local Commissioner on 01.05.2024 to the plaintiff on the visit of representative of the plaintiff to the premises of the defendant no.1 for the purpose of destruction.
28. The suit of the plaintiff is also decreed for damages for a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- (rupees three lakhs only) for infringing and passing off the trademark of the plaintiff and by selling its good with the logos/labels of the plaintiff. Cost of the suit is also awarded in favour of plaintiff.
29. Decree sheet be drawn accordingly.
30. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open court Digitally signed AJAY on the 29th day of March, 2024 by AJAY PANDEY PANDEY Date: 2025.03.29 15:28:49 +0530 (Ajay Pandey) District Judge (Commercial Court-10) Central, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
Levi Strauss & Company Vs Salman & Anr. Page no. 21 of 21 CS Comm 512/24