Delhi District Court
Louis Vuitton Malletier vs Shrey Katyal Owner Of Fashion Bible on 13 December, 2025
IN THE COURT OF DISTRICT JUDGE
(COMMERCIAL COURT)-02, SOUTH WEST DISTRICT,
DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI
CS (COMM.) No. 425/2023
CNR NO.: DLSW01-008839-2023
IN THE MATTER OF: -
Louis Vuitton Malletier
2, rue du pont-Neuf
75001-Paris, France
Through Ms. Meena Bansal
Constituted Attorney
52, Sukhdev Vihar, Mathura Road,
Delhi - 110025.
. . . . . Plaintiff
Versus
Sh. Shrey Katyal
Owner of Fashion Bible
H-468, Pocket H, New Rajinder Nagar,
New Delhi.
. . . . . Defendant
SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION FOR
INFRINGEMENT OF TRADEMARK AND COPYRIGHT
Date of Institution : 13.09.2023
Date of reserving Judgment : 28.11.2025
Date of pronouncement of Judgment : 13.12.2025
J U D G M E N T :-
1. Vide this judgment, I shall decide the present suit filed by the plaintiff under Section 134 & 135 of the Trademarks Act, CS (Comm.) No.: 425/23 Louis Vuitton Malletier vs. Shrey Katyal Page 1 of 39 1999 and Section 55 of the Copyright Act, 1957 for permanent injunction restraining infringement of trademark, passing off, delivery up, damages and rendition of accounts etc. against the defendant.
BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE
2. The case of the plaintiff as set out in the plaint, in nutshell, is as under: -
2.1. The Plaintiff Louis is a corporation duly incorporated and existing under the laws of France, having its registered office in Paris, France. Ms. Meena Bansal is the constituted attorney of the plaintiff who is well conversant with the facts and circumstances of the case and is duly authorized to file the instant suit on behalf of the plaintiff.
2.2. The Plaintiff is one of the world's leading international luxury fashion houses engaged in the business of designing, creation, manufacture, sale, distribution and marketing of a wide range of products spanning high quality leather fashion accessories from luxury handbags to luggage bags, ready-to-
wear fashion goods like clothing's, apparels, readymade garments, shoes, handbags, watches, belts, leather belts, leather goods, accessories, wallets, purses, jewelry, sunglasses, articles of clothing, office stationery, pens, books etc. (hereinafter referred to as the "said goods and business").
2.3. The Plaintiff company was founded by a French Fashion CS (Comm.) No.: 425/23 Louis Vuitton Malletier vs. Shrey Katyal Page 2 of 39 designer namely, Louis Vuitton, and the name of Louis Vuitton as the name of the company was used for the first time in the year 1854. The name Louis Vuitton has also been used as a trademark ever since then.
2.4. The Plaintiff is the owner and proprietor of the trademark "Louis Vuitton", initials of Louis Vuitton, namely "LV"
represented in a special logo format and many other trademark/ label/ device as shown under: -
CS (Comm.) No.: 425/23 Louis Vuitton Malletier vs. Shrey Katyal Page 3 of 39 (collectively referred to as LOUIS VUITTON labels and hereinafter referred to as the said trademark/label/device).
2.5. Ever since bonafide adoption of the said trademark/label/device in 1984, the plaintiff has been honestly, bonafidely, continuously, commercially, openly, exclusively and to the exclusion of others, uninterruptedly and as proprietor thereof using the same in relation to its said goods and business and carrying on its said goods and business thereunder and has built up a worldwide and globally valuable trade, goodwill and reputation there under and acquired proprietary rights therein. The plaintiff uses its said trademark/label/devices either individually or in combination of each other as word mark and/or artistic label/logo formats.
2.6. The plaintiff has obtained registration of its said trademark/label/devices under the Trade Marks Act, 1999 in India which are stated to be legal, valid, renewed and subsisting on register. Details of such registrations are depicted in para 7 of the plaint.
2.7. The art works involved in the plaintiff's said trademark/label/devices are original artistic works and the plaintiff is the owner and proprietor of the copyright therein within the meaning of Section 14 of the Copyright Act, 1957.
2.8. The Plaintiff has conducted extensive global business under CS (Comm.) No.: 425/23 Louis Vuitton Malletier vs. Shrey Katyal Page 4 of 39 its said trademark/label/device across the world including India and has regularly and continuously been promoting it's said distinctive trademark/label/device and the goods and business thereunder through extensive advertisements, publicities, promotions and marketing for which the plaintiff has been spending enormous amount of money, efforts, and time thereon. The plaintiff has also been carrying on its online business and promoting its said goods and business electronically over the internet through its registered domains name viz. www.louisvuitton.com;
https://us.louisvuitton.com/eng-us/; https://eu.louisvuitton.com/eng- el/, https://uk.louisvuitton.com/eng-gb/, https://ca.louisvuitton.com/ eng-ca/ etc. wherein word Louis Vuitton forms material/essential part. The plaintiff has also vast social media presence through websites like Facebook, Twitter, Instagram etc and also on YouTube, links of which are given in para no. 13 of the plaint.
2.9. The plaintiff maintains highest standard of quality in relation to its goods and business under the said trade mark/label/device which have become distinctive, associated and acquired secondary significance with the plaintiff and plaintiff's said goods and business. The purchasing public, the trade and industry at large worldwide and in India identify and distinguish the plaintiff's said goods under the said trade mark/label/device with the plaintiff and from the plaintiff's source and origin alone and regard them as a high quality product exclusively as that of the plaintiff. Due to excellent quality of plaintiff's said goods and massive CS (Comm.) No.: 425/23 Louis Vuitton Malletier vs. Shrey Katyal Page 5 of 39 advertisement, the plaintiff's said goods under the said Trade Mark/Label/Device have acquired a huge goodwill and reputation in business community.
2.10. It is claimed that in view of the plaintiff's proprietary rights both statutory and common law in its said Trade Mark/Label/Device, its goodwill, reputation, and its copyrights, the plaintiff has the exclusive right to the use the same and nobody can be permitted to use the same or any other deceptively similar Trade/Label/Device in any manner whatsoever in relation to any specification of goods without the leave and license of the plaintiff.
2.11. As regards the defendant, it is stated that the defendant is the owner of FASHION BIBLE platform which is a third-party seller offering counterfeit luxury products for sale and is engaged in manufacturing, marketing, soliciting of luxury bags, handbags, leather bags and all lifestyle goods, footwear, accessories etc. and other allied/cognate goods (hereinafter referred to as "impugned goods/products and business") through its social media platform i.e. Facebook and Instagram. The plaintiff has also shown the screenshots of Instagram and Facebook pages of the defendant in para 20 of the plaint.
2.12. In the first week of February 2023, the Plaintiff came to know about the infringing activities being carried on by the Defendant via its aforesaid social media pages lnstagram and Facebook, wherein the Defendant is actively engaged in the CS (Comm.) No.: 425/23 Louis Vuitton Malletier vs. Shrey Katyal Page 6 of 39 manufacturing, trading, selling, marketing, advertising, promoting, displaying, soliciting of the impugned goods and business. The plaintiff has shown the screenshots of the Instagram pages and Facebook pages of the defendant in para 20 of the plaint.
2.13. With an aim to determine the genuineness and authenticity of the impugned goods of the defendant, the plaintiff in the second week of February, 2023, conducted a test purchase of "Multi Pochette Accessories Handbag" offered for sale by the defendant through its Instagram page (hereinafter referred to as 'test purchased product"), price of which was estimated at Rs. 42,000/-, out of which the plaintiff made advance payment of half of the aforesaid amount i.e. Rs. 21,000/- while placing the order. It is stated that the actual price of the Plaintiff's original goods/ product for the subject matter 'test purchased product" is estimated at Rs. 2,11,000/- and the plaintiff at no point of time offers for sale any of it's said goods/products at a discounted rate. The Plaintiff received the delivery of the test-purchased product on 15.03.2023 and made the second part of the pending payment i.e. Rs. 21,000/-.
2.14. In the third week of April 2023, the Plaintiff's representatives couriered the test purchased product to the Plaintiff's head office in order to test the genuineness and authenticity of the same. The Plaintiff's head office, in the month of May, 2023 confirmed that the test-purchased product is in fact a counterfeit/fake and the nature of the CS (Comm.) No.: 425/23 Louis Vuitton Malletier vs. Shrey Katyal Page 7 of 39 trade of impugned goods/products by the defendant as unauthorized sales/solicitation activities/ illegal manufacturing.
2.15. Further, through the test purchase conducted, the plaintiff gathered additional information about the defendant including the address associated with the defendant i.e H-348, Pocket H, New Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi which on physical verification conducted by the plaintiff in the month of June-July 2023 was found to be fake and misleading. The plaintiff thereafter carried out an in-depth and detailed investigation on the impugned business of the defendant and successfully located the residential address of the Defendant at 3rd Floor, H-468, Pocket H, New Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi, Delhi, India.
2.16. It is stated that the defendant has adopted and started using the Trade Mark/Label , , , , , in relation to their impugned goods and have been using the same individually or in combination of each other in logo/label form (hereinafter collectively referred to as the "impugned marks/labels").
2.17. The impugned marks/labels adopted and being used by the defendant in relation to their impugned goods and business CS (Comm.) No.: 425/23 Louis Vuitton Malletier vs. Shrey Katyal Page 8 of 39 are identical with/deceptively similar to the plaintiff's said trademarks/labels in each and every respect including phonetically, visually, structurally, in its basic idea and in its essential features. The defendant has also copied the artistic features involved in the plaintiff's said trademarks/labels and are thus infringing the plaintiff's copyrights involved in its said trademarks/labels. The defendant is using all kinds of false description on its impugned goods to wrongly link the impugned goods/products with the plaintiff and to wrongly convey to the public and customers that the impugned goods/products are coming from the source and origin of the plaintiff.
2.18. The defendant is not the proprietor of the impugned marks/labels and have adopted and started using the same in relation to their impugned goods and business without the leave and license of the plaintiff, dishonestly, fraudulently and out of positive greed with a view to take advantage and to trade upon the established goodwill, reputation and proprietary rights of the plaintiff in its said trademarks/labels, thereby violating the plaintiff's registered trademark and copyright; and is passing off his goods and business as that of the plaintiff. Due to the defendant's 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 as the the unwary purchasers and trade are being deceived as to the origin of goods or business. Hence, the present suit.
CS (Comm.) No.: 425/23 Louis Vuitton Malletier vs. Shrey Katyal Page 9 of 39
3. By way of present suit, the plaintiff has made following prayers: -
i. A decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendant by themselves as also through their individual partners/ proprietors, directors, agents, representatives, distributors, assigns, stockiest, dealers, retailers etc., and all other acting for and on their behalf from manufacturing, marketing, selling, using, supplying, soliciting, displaying, advertising, importing/exporting or by any other mode or manner dealing with the impugned marks/labels/label , , , , , or any other trade mark/label identical with or deceptively similar to the Plaintiff's trademark/label , , , , , in relation to luxury Bags, Handbags, leather bags and all lifestyle goods, footwear, and accessories etc. and other allied/cognate goods or from doing any other acts or deeds amounting to (i) Infringement of plaintiff's registered trademarks; (ii)) Passing off and enabling others to pass off their goods and business as that of the plaintiff; (iii) CS (Comm.) No.: 425/23 Louis Vuitton Malletier vs. Shrey Katyal Page 10 of 39 Infringement of Plaintiff's copyrights in its labels; and (iv) indulging in falsification and unfair and unethical trade practices and violation of trade name.
ii. Restraining the defendant from disposing off or dealing with their assets including their premises at the addresses mentioned in the Memo of Parties and their stocks-in-trade or any other assets as may be brought to the notice of the Hon'ble Court during the course of the proceedings and on the Defendant's disclosure thereof and which the Defendant is called upon to disclose and/or on its ascertainment by the Plaintiff as the Plaintiff is not aware of the same as per Section 135(2)(c) of the Trade Marks Act,1999 as it could adversely affect the Plaintiff's ability to recover the costs and pecuniary reliefs thereon.
iii. For an order for delivery up of all the impugned finished and unfinished material of the defendant bearing the impugned marks/labels/trade dress/packaging/ combination of colors or any other trademark/trade dress/packaging/ combination of colors deceptively similar to plaintiff's said trademark/trade dress/packaging/ combination of colors, including blocks and labels, display boards, sign boards, trade literature, advertisement material etc. to the Plaintiff for purpose of destruction/ erasure.
iv. For an order for disclosure of the exact source of the infringing goods and its supply and distribution network from the Defendant.
CS (Comm.) No.: 425/23 Louis Vuitton Malletier vs. Shrey Katyal Page 11 of 39 v. For rendition of accounts by the Defendant for ascertainment of the profits illegally earned by the Defendant by their impugned activities and for a money decree for such profits being so ascertained.
vi. In alternative to accounts, for a decree of grant of damages to the tune of Rs. 5,10,000/- from the defendant.
vii. For an order for costs of the proceedings.
4. On being served with the summons of the suit, the defendant has contested the suit by filing written statement wherein some preliminary submissions have been made that the suit is barred by Section 2 of the Power of Attorney Act, 1882 as the the present suit has been filed by an unauthorized person . It is contended that Ms. Meena Bansal has no locus standi and cannot be said to be authorized person to file the present suit on behalf of the plaintiff in the absence of any authorization document in her favour such as Board resolution and minutes of meeting. It is further contended that the plaintiff's attorney/instrument has not been duly authorized by its Principal under his own name, signatures and seal and hence Power of Attorney so filed is not effectual in law. It is further contended that no cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court nor the defendant or the plaintiff works for gain within the local jurisdiction of this Court and hence the present suit is barred under Section 20 (a) and 20 (c) of the CPC read with Section 134 of the Trademarks Act, 1999. Further, the plaint does not disclose any cause of CS (Comm.) No.: 425/23 Louis Vuitton Malletier vs. Shrey Katyal Page 12 of 39 action qua the claims as mentioned in the plaint and hence the plaint is liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 10/11 CPC. The defendant has further contended that the goods seized by the Local Commissioner during raid were the personal goods and for personal use of the defendant and not intended for sale; and the report of the Local Commissioner is a malafide report to favour the plaintiff company.
5. In para-wise reply, the defendant has denied to be owner of Fashion Bible platform and third-party seller offering counterfeit luxury products for sale and to be engaged in manufacturing, marketing, soliciting of luxury bags, handbags, leather bags and all lifestyle goods, footwear, accessories etc. and other allied/cognate goods through his Facebook and Instagram pages. It is stated that the defendant does not work of impugned trademark/labels and the screenshots of Facebook and Instagram pages as shown by the plaintiff do not belong to the defendant and the same are completely illegible. It is contended that whole story of test purchase product is false and fabricated with the sole intention to plant a false and concocted allegation upon the defendant. The defendant has admitted to have received amount of Rs. 42,000/- in his bank account but he contended that he had no knowledge as to who and why the said amount had been deposited in his account and the same had been deposited in his account wrongly without his knowledge, intimation and consent. It is stated that he has been waiting to refund the same to the person who got deposited the said amount wrongly in his bank account. The other contents of the CS (Comm.) No.: 425/23 Louis Vuitton Malletier vs. Shrey Katyal Page 13 of 39 plaint are stated to be wrong and denied and the defendant has prayed for dismissal of the suit.
6. At this juncture, it is relevant to mention here that during course of the proceedings, the plaintiff moved an application for substitution of its AR Ms. Meena Bansal on the ground of her health Condition. The said application was allowed vide order dated 07.03.2025 and Sh. Kartik Malhotra was substituted as new AR of the plaintiff in the light of the Power of Attorney in his favour dated 10.10.2024.
ISSUES
7. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed for adjudication by the Ld. Predecessor vide order dated 30.05.2024 : -
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree of permanent injunction, as prayed for in para 49A of the plaint? OPP.
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for any decree for delivery up all the impugned finished and unfinished material against the defendant? OPP.
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for rendition of accounts from defendant? OPP.
4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree of damages to the tune of Rs. 5,10,000/- from the defendant? OPP.
5. Whether Ms. Meena Bansal has been duly authorized by plaintiff to sign and verify the pleadings of the present case on behalf of plaintiff ? OPP.
CS (Comm.) No.: 425/23 Louis Vuitton Malletier vs. Shrey Katyal Page 14 of 39
6. Whether this court has got no territorial jurisdiction to try the present case? OPD.
7. Relief .
EVIDENCE LED BY THE PARTIES
8. In support of its case, the plaintiff has examined its Authorized Representative Sh. Kartik Malhotra as PW-1 as its sole witness who led his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/A wherein he has deposed in terms of the averments made in the plaint. He has relied upon the following documents:-
Sr. No. Details of documents Exhibit
1. True representation of the Ex. PW1/1
plaintiff's said trademark/
label/device
2. True representation of the Ex. PW1/2
plaintiff's said goods bearing the
said trademark/ label/device
3. True representation of the Ex. PW1/3
defendant's impugned mark/label
4. True representation of defendant's Ex. PW1/4
impugned goods/packaging
bearing the impugned mark/label
5. Comparison chart of the plaintiff's Ex. PW1/5 goods bearing the trademark/label device with that of the defendant's impugned goods/packaging bearing the impugned mark/label
6. Status page and Trademark Ex. PW1/6 CS (Comm.) No.: 425/23 Louis Vuitton Malletier vs. Shrey Katyal Page 15 of 39 Sr. No. Details of documents Exhibit Registration Certificate of the trademark under Number 441453
7. Status page and Trademark Ex. PW1/7 Registration Certificate of the trademark under Number 861145
8. Status page of trademark under Ex. PW1/8 Number 861146
9. Status page of trademark under Ex. PW1/9 Number 1335385 (Colly)
10. Status page and journal copy of Ex. PW1/10 the trademark under Number 1335386
11. Status page of trademark under Ex. PW1/11 Number 1335387
12. Status page and Trademark Ex. PW1/12 Registration Certificate of the trademark under Number 1586544
13. Status page and Trademark Ex. PW1/13 Registration Certificate of the trademark under Number 2202972
14. Status page and Trademark Ex. PW1/14 Registration Certificate of the trademark under Number 2316815
15. Status page, Journal Copy and Ex. PW1/15 Trademark Registration Certificate of the trademark under Number 441415 for the word mark "LOUIS VUITTON"
16. Status page, Journal Copy and Ex. PW1/16 Trademark Registration Certificate of the trademark under Number 448229 for the word mark "LOUIS VUITTON"
17. Status page, Journal Copy and Ex. PW1/17 CS (Comm.) No.: 425/23 Louis Vuitton Malletier vs. Shrey Katyal Page 16 of 39 Sr. No. Details of documents Exhibit Trademark Registration Certificate of the trademark under Number 1292333
18. Status page, Journal Copy and Ex. PW1/18 Trademark Registration Certificate of the trademark under Number 1639892 for the device mark "LOUIS VUITTON TRUNKS & BAGS"
19. Copies of the LPCs of the Ex. PW1/19 plaintiff's said trademark/labels registration in India
20. List of WIPO registrations Ex. PW1/20 depicting the registrations of the said trademarks/labels around the world
21. Copy of the plaintiff's Ex. PW1/21 consolidated financial statements for the year 2021
22. Copy of the plaintiff's Ex. PW1/22 consolidated financial statements for the year 2022
23. Copy of advertisements and news Ex. PW1/23 articles pertaining to the plaintiff under the said trademarks/labels
24. Screenshots of the plaintiff's Ex. PW1/24 website depicting the sale of said goods bearing the said trademarks/labels
25. Copy of the Whois details of the Ex. PW1/25 Plaintiff's website
26. Screenshots of the social media Ex. PW1/26 platforms such as Instagram, Facebook, Youtube, Twitter being operated by the plaintiff
27. Copy of various court orders Ex. PW1/27 wherein the plaintiff has obtained CS (Comm.) No.: 425/23 Louis Vuitton Malletier vs. Shrey Katyal Page 17 of 39 Sr. No. Details of documents Exhibit injunction against other infringers
28. Copy of orders in favour of the Ex. PW1/28 plaintiff wherein the plaintiff's said trademark has been declared as a well-known mark
29. List of well-known Marks Ex. PW1/29 depicting the Plaintiff's said trademark published by the Indian Trademark Registry
30. Analysis cum Authentication Ex. PW1/30 Report
31. Screenshots of the social media Ex. PW1/31 platforms such as Instagram and Facebook wherein the defendant is selling the impugned goods under the impugned marks/labels
32. Screenshots depicting the active Ex. PW1/32 solicitation of the impugned goods under the impugned marks/labels by the defendant through its Instagram for placement of orders and sale
33. Screenshots depicting the Ex. PW1/33 confirmation received by the defendant for delivery of the impugned goods under the impugned marks/labels within the jurisdiction of this Court
34. Screenshot of the payment made Ex. PW1/34 towards the test-purchase of the impugned goods from the defendant
35. Resolution-cum-Authority in Ex. PW1/35 favour of constituted attorney, Sh.
Kartka Malhotra
36. Affidavit in compliance of Order Ex. PW1/36 11 Rule 6 of the the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 in support of CS (Comm.) No.: 425/23 Louis Vuitton Malletier vs. Shrey Katyal Page 18 of 39 Sr. No. Details of documents Exhibit electronic documents
37. Report of the Local Ex. PW1/37 Commissioner pertaining to the raid conducted at the premises of the defendant on 16.09.2023
38. Letter of Authorization dated Ex. PW1/38 01.03.2017 in favour of Mrs. Meena Bansal
9. It is pertinent to note here that the defendant failed to cross-examine PW-1 Sh. Kartik Malhotra despite opportunity granted to him and hence right of the defendant to cross- examine the PW-1 was closed vide order dated 06.08.2025. The defendant also stopped appearing in the matter and an application for withdrawal of her Vakalatnama was filed by Ms. Bhumika Aggarwal, Ld. Counsel for the defendant on the ground that she had lost the contact with the defendant. Pursuant to the same, a court notice was directed to be issued to the defendant through all modes vide order dated 06.11.2025. The defendant was served with the court notice through WhatsApp, but despite service, the defendant failed to appear in the Court and was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 28.11.2025.
10. I have heard the Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff and perused the record.
11. On the basis of evidence led by the plaintiff and the CS (Comm.) No.: 425/23 Louis Vuitton Malletier vs. Shrey Katyal Page 19 of 39 material available on record, my issue-wise findings are as under:-
Issue No.1 (Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree of permanent injunction, as prayed for in para 49A of the plaint? )
12. The onus to prove this issue was on the plaintiff.
13. To discharge the onus, the plaintiff has examined PW-1 Sh. Kartik Malhotra who has deposed on the similar lines of averments made in the plaint in his examination-in-chief filed by way of affidavit Ex. PW1/A and his deposition is duly supported by the relevant documents as Ex.PW1/1 to Ex.PW1/38, as already noted herein above. The testimony of PW-1 has gone unrebutted and unchallenged as the defendant chose not to cross- examine the witness.
14. In the case titled as "Amrish Agarwal Vs. M/s Venus Home Appliances Pvt. Ltd" in CM (M) 1059/2018 dated 27-08-2019, passed by Hon'ble Delhi High Court, it was, inter alia, directed that in trademark infringement matters, the following documents ought to be necessarily filed along with the plaint. The relevant Para no.7 of this judgment is reproduced hereunder:
"7. It is directed that in trade mark infringement matters the following documents ought to be necessarily filed along with the plaint:
(i) Legal Proceedings Certificate (LPC) of the trade mark showing the mark, date of application, date of user claimed, conditions and disclaimers if any, assignments and licenses granted, renewals etc., CS (Comm.) No.: 425/23 Louis Vuitton Malletier vs. Shrey Katyal Page 20 of 39
(ii) If the LPC is not available, at the time of filing of the suit and urgent orders of injunction are being sought, a copy of the trade mark registration certificate, copy of the trade mark journal along with the latest status report from the website of the Trade Mark Registry. This should be accompanied by an averment in the pleadings that LPC is applied for. Specific averment ought to be made that there are no disclaimers imposed on the mark and the mark stands renewed. Any licenses and assignments ought to be pleaded.
(iii) xxxx
(iv) In the case of (ii), the party ought to file the LPC prior to the commencement of the trial, if any aspect of the trade mark registration is being disputed by the opposite side"
15. In the present case, PW-1 has relied upon and filed copies of Legal Proceeding Certificates Ex. PW1/19 in respect of some of the registered trademark/label/device of the plaintiff, copies of Registration Certificates in respect of registered trademark/label/device of the plaintiff as shown in para 7 of his affidavit along with copies of journal copy and the latest status report thereof downloaded from the website of the Trade Mark Registry status thereof as Ex. PW1/6 to Ex. PW1/18. PW-1 has also placed on record the list of WIPO registrations depicting the registration of the said trademark/labels in favour of the plaintiff around the world as Ex. PW1/20. These documents filed by the PW-1 have remained unchallenged as the defendant chose not to cross-examine the witness. By virtue of these documents, the plaintiff has successfully proved on record that it is the registered owner and proprietor of said trademark/label/device under various classes in India and the said registrations are valid and renewed till date in favour of the plaintiff.
CS (Comm.) No.: 425/23 Louis Vuitton Malletier vs. Shrey Katyal Page 21 of 39
16. The plaintiff has also claimed to be owner and proprietor of copyright in artistic work involved in the said trademark/label/device. In this regard, PW-1 examined by the plaintiff has deposed as per the averments made in the plaint whose testimony has gone un-rebutted and un-controverted as the defendant chose not to cross-examine the witness and there is no reason to disbelieve his deposition.
17. PW-1 has also placed on record the true representation of the plaintiff's registered trademark/label/device as Ex.PW1/1 and true representation of the plaintiff's goods bearing the plaintiff's registered trade mark/label/device as Ex.PW1/2. He has also placed on record the plaintiff's consolidated Financial Statements for the years 2021 and 2022 as Ex.PW1/21 and Ex.PW1/22 respectively, copy of advertisements and news articles pertaining to the plaintiff under the said trademark/labels as Ex. PW1/23, screenshots of the plaintiff's website depicting the said goods bearing the said trademark/labels/device as Ex. PW1/24 , screenshots of social media platforms depicting the plaintiff's products on social media platform like Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Youtube being operated by the plaintiff as Ex. PW1/26. PW-1 has also placed on record the list of well-known marks published by the Indian Trademark Registry as Ex. PW1/29 wherein the name of the plaintiff's trademark find mentioned at Serial no. 68. These documents have remained unchallenged and even otherwise are duly certified vide certificate under Order XI Rule 6 (3) CPC Ex.PW1/36. These documents clearly go to show that the CS (Comm.) No.: 425/23 Louis Vuitton Malletier vs. Shrey Katyal Page 22 of 39 plaintiff's goods under the trademark/label/device are sold and traded through extensive marketing, distribution and dealership network and also through retail, Internet and e-commerce websites across the world; and it has built up a globally valuable trade and gained substantial reputation and goodwill in the market on account of voluminous sales. The same also show that the plaintiff has been extensively promoting its said trademark/label/device by way of advertisements and spending huge money thereon.
18. The defendant, being owner of FASHION BIBLE, is alleged to have adopted the impugned trademarks/labels/device in relation to impugned goods which are identical/deceptively similar to the registered trademarks/labels/device of the plaintiff. It is also claimed that the defendant has copied the basic idea and essential features of the registered trademarks/labels/device of the plaintiff and started using the impugned trademarks/labels/device in respect of impunged goods and business without any authorization in order to trade upon the established goodwill, reputation and proprietary rights of the plaintiff in its registered trademarks/labels/device.
19. In this regard, PW-1 has placed on record true representation of the impugned trademark/labels of the defendant as Ex. PW1/3, true representation of the defendant's impugned goods/packaging bearing impugned mark/label as Ex. PW1/4 and screenshots depicting sale of impugned products bearing the impunged trademark/label by CS (Comm.) No.: 425/23 Louis Vuitton Malletier vs. Shrey Katyal Page 23 of 39 the defendant on different social media such as Instagram and Facebook as Ex. PW1/31, screenshots depciting active solicitation of the impugned goods under the impunged marks/lables by the defendnt through its Instagam page for placement of order and sale as Ex. PW1/32. He has also placed on record the comparison chart of the plaintiff's goods bearing its registered trademark/lable with that of the defendant's impunged goods/packaing bearing the impunged mark/label as Ex. PW1/5 to show the deceptively similarity between the two marks/lables, which is reproduced hereinunder: -
PLAINTIFF'S SAID GOODS DEFENDANT'S IMPUGNED BEARING THE SAID GOODS BEARING THE TRADEMARKS/LABELS IMPUGNED MARKS/LABELS CS (Comm.) No.: 425/23 Louis Vuitton Malletier vs. Shrey Katyal Page 24 of 39
20. A perusal of the comparison chart Ex.PW1/5 placed on record by PW-1 shows that impugned trademarks/labels/packaging used by the defendant on impugned products are identical and/or deceptively/confusingly similar to the plaintiff's trademark/labels. The whole get up of trademark/labels used in both the products are almost similar viz. the colour combination, the pattern, the design.
21. It is, thus, quite clear that the defendant has imitated/copied all the major and essential features of the registered trademark/label/device of the plaintiff on impugned CS (Comm.) No.: 425/23 Louis Vuitton Malletier vs. Shrey Katyal Page 25 of 39 trademark/label/device which makes both the marks identical or deceptively similar and the unwary purchasers and trade are likely to be deceived as to origin of the goods and business.
22. It is well settled law that test of deceptive similarity is to be seen from the perspective of a common man with average intelligence and imperfect recollection as laid down by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case titled as "Himalaya Drug Company v. M/s S.B.L. Limited", 2012 (194) DLT 536, as also in recent case of "Mankind Pharma Limited v. Novakind Bio Sciences Private Limited" CS (COMM) 188/2021 decided on 07-08-2023.
23. Further, it is trite law that it is the overall get up and similarity which has to be seen and not the minor variations because it is similarity which strikes and not the dissimilarities which distinguish when an ordinary person recollects an object seen in the past. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of "Parle Products (P) Ltd. Vs. J.P. and Co., Mysore ", reported at AIR 1972 SC 1359, has referred to Karly's Law of Trade Marks and Trade (9th Edition, paragraph 838), wherein it has been observed as under:-
"Two marks, when placed side by side, may exhibit many and various differences, yet the main idea left on the mind by both may be the same. A person acquainted with one mark, and not having the two side by side for comparison, might well be deceived, if the goods were allowed to be impressed with the second mark, into a belief that he was dealing with goods which bore the same mark as that with which he was acquainted. Thus, for example, a mark may represent a game of football; another mark may show players in a different dress, and in very different positions, and yet the idea conveyed by each might be simply a game CS (Comm.) No.: 425/23 Louis Vuitton Malletier vs. Shrey Katyal Page 26 of 39 of football. It would be too much to expect that persons dealing with trademarked goods, and relying, as they frequently do, upon marks, should be able to remember the exact details of the marks upon the goods with which they are in the habit of dealing. Marks are remembered rather by general impressions or by some significant detail than by any photographic recollection of the whole. Moreover, variations in detail might well be supposed by customers to have been made by the owners of the trade mark they are already acquainted with for reasons of their own."
24. With these observation, the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under: -
"It is therefore clear that in order to come to the conclusion whether one mark is deceptively similar to another, the broad and essential features of the two are to be considered. They should not be placed side by side to find out if there are any differences in the design and if so, whether they are of such character as to prevent one design from being mistaken for the other. It would be enough if the impugned mark bears such an overall similarity to the registered mark as would be likely to mislead a person usually dealing with one to accept the other if offered to him".
25. In this case, as noted above, the layout, design, colour scheme, get up of both the trade marks/labels are almost similar to each other. It is relevant to note that both the parties are engaged in the same business and primarily deal in the goods of similar nature. That being so, there is every possibility that the said goods would be sold at the same shops and would cater to the same class of the purchasers and thus, the chance of likelihood of confusion cannot be ruled out in such a case.
26. The defendant in the written statement though has denied to be owner of the FASHION BIBLE and to be engaged in the infringing activities through his social media pages but the CS (Comm.) No.: 425/23 Louis Vuitton Malletier vs. Shrey Katyal Page 27 of 39 defendant has not come forward to challenge the claim of the plaintiff regarding his ownership of FASHION BIBLE platform and unauthorized use of the impugned trademark by him. In the absence of any evidence being led by the defendant, in this regard, this contention of the defendant has remained unsubstantiated.
27. It is also to be noted that in order to determine the genuineness and authenticity of the impugned goods of the defendant, the plaintiff conducted a test purchase of "Multi Pochette Accessories Handbag" offered for sale by the defendant through its Instagram page, sale price of which was shown to be Rs. 42,000/-. The plaintiff's representative purchased the said product for which amount of Rs. 42,000/- was paid to the defendant by the plaintiff in two installments. PW-1, in this regard, has placed on record the screenshot of the payment made towards the test-purchase of the impugned goods from the defendant as Ex.PW1/34 and screenshots of WhatsApp chats depicting the confirmation received by the defendant for delivery of the impugned goods under the impugned marks/labels as Ex. PW1/33. The plaintiff sent the said test purchase product to its head office which confirmed the same to be couturier/fake.
28. In the written statement, the defendant has claimed the story of test purchase product to be false and fabricated, but he admitted to have received Rs. 42,000/- in his bank account. Though he asserted that the said amount was deposited wrongly in his bank account by the plaintiff without his knowledge and CS (Comm.) No.: 425/23 Louis Vuitton Malletier vs. Shrey Katyal Page 28 of 39 consent in order to plant a false and concocted allegation upon him. However, the defendant did not enter into the witness box to substantiate this assertion. In view of the admission of the defendant to have received Rs. 42,000/- in his bank account from the plaintiff and in the absence of any contrary evidence led by the defendant, it stands proved that the plaintiff's representative purchased the impugned good i.e. "Multi Pochette Accessories Handbag" bearing impugned trademark/labels through test purchase product from the defendant for Rs. 42,000/- as offered for sale by the defendant in his Instagram page. The assertion of the defendant that he received the amount of Rs. 42,000/- in his bank account wrongly is not found to be tenable. The test purchase product obtained by the plaintiff was found to be counterfeit for the reasons mentioned in the Analysis-cum-Authentication report Ex. PW1/30 filed by the plaintiff which remained undisputed on the side of the defendant.
29. Additionally, a Local Commissioner was appointed in the present case on an application moved by the plaintiff under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC, to investigate the defendant's premises and prepare an inventory of the infringing goods. Upon inspection of the defendant's premises, the Local Commissioner seized 19 items bearing identical trademark 'LOUIS VUITTON', 'L.V.' of the plaintiff and endorsed them as infringing apparels and other accessories. The report of the Local Commissioner has been proved on record by PW-1 as Ex. PW1/37 which remained unchallenged on the side of the CS (Comm.) No.: 425/23 Louis Vuitton Malletier vs. Shrey Katyal Page 29 of 39 defendant and clearly shows that the substantial amount of counterfeit goods were seized from the defendant's premises. The defence taken by the defendant in the written statement that the goods seized by the Local Commissioner from his residence were for his personal use and not meant for sale has remained unsubstantiated in the absence of any evidence led by the defendant.
30. In view of the aforesaid discussions and unrebutted testimony of PW-1 which is duly supported with the relevant documents, the plaintiff has been able to show that the defendant has intentionally and deceitfully committed acts of infringement of its trademark/label/device as well as copyright in the artwork involved therein. While applying the prudent test from the point of common/lay man, it is also shown that the defendant is passing off his products by prominently using deceptively similar trademark/labels/device as that of the plaintiff on his products, thereby giving an impression in the minds of common man that those products are coming from the house of the plaintiff. Therefore, the trademark and copyright of plaintiff company are required to be protected by granting relief of permanent inunction as prayed for. Accordingly, this issue is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
Issue No. 2Whether the plaintiff is entitled for any decree for delivery up all the impugned finished and unfinished material against the defendant?
31. The onus to prove this issue was on the plaintiff.
CS (Comm.) No.: 425/23 Louis Vuitton Malletier vs. Shrey Katyal Page 30 of 39
32. During course of the arguments, the Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff did not press the said issue as the impugned goods have already been seized and handed over to the plaintiff on superdari by the Ld. Local Commissioner. However, the Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff submitted that the plaintiff may be allowed to destruct the infringed goods to rule out the possibility of their further circulation in the market.
33. As noted herein above, a Local commissioner was appointed in the present case and he had seized 19 infringing articles from the premises of the defendant. The same were given to the plaintiff on superdari. Under Issue No. 1, this Court has held that the infringing goods are identical or deceptively similar to the registered trademark of the plaintiff and decree of permanent injunction has also been passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. Therefore, I find merit in the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff that the infringing goods lying in the custody of the plaintiff may be allowed to be destructed to rule out any possibility of their further circulation in the market. Accordingly, the said request is allowed after expiry of time to file an appeal against this judgment by the defendant.
Issue No. 3 & 4 Whether the plaintiff is entitled for rendition of accounts from defendant?
and Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree of damages to the tune of Rs. 5,10,000/- from the defendant?
CS (Comm.) No.: 425/23 Louis Vuitton Malletier vs. Shrey Katyal Page 31 of 39
34. Both the issues are taken up together as they are interlinked. The onus to prove these issues was on the plaintiff.
35. The plaintiff has averred in the plaint that on account of impugned activities by the defendant, it is suffering huge losses both in business and in reputation. It is further averred that the plaintiff has no access to the defendant's accounts and the defendant is liable to render their accounts to the Plaintiff and or in alternative the defendant is liable to pay damages to make good to the Plaintiff the profits and business earned by him. The plaintiff has claimed damages of Rs. 5,10,000/- from the defendant for the loss suffered by the plaintiff on account of impugned activities carried out by the defendant.
36. Since the plaintiff has been able to show under Issue No. 1 that the defendant has violated its registered trademark and copyright by selling the impugned goods bearing impugned trademarks/labels which are identical/deceptively similar to the registered trademark of the plaintiff, the defendant is liable to render his accounts to the plaintiff to show what profit he has made by infringing activities. However, since in the present case, the defendant stopped appearing in the matter and deprived the plaintiff from the benefit of rendition of accounts. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the plaintiff company is entitled to the alternative relief of damages. The damages claimed by the plaintiff of Rs. 5,10,000/- appears to be on higher side in the absence of any evidence led by the plaintiff to the effect that loss to the tune of Rs. 5,10,000/- was suffered by the plaintiff on account of infringing activities carried out by the defendant.
CS (Comm.) No.: 425/23 Louis Vuitton Malletier vs. Shrey Katyal Page 32 of 39 Keeping in view the overall facts and circumstances of the case and the recovery of seized goods by the Local Commissioner, the damages are quantified at Rs. 3,00,000/-.
37. The Issue No. 3 and 4 are decided accordingly.
Issue No. 5Whether Ms. Meena Bansal has been duly authorized by plaintiff to sign and verify the pleadings of the present case on behalf of plaintiff ?
38. The onus to prove this issue was placed upon the plaintiff. The same appears to be a typographical error and the onus to prove this issue should have been placed upon the defendant as the defendant has taken an objection in the written statement that Ms. Meena Bansal is not duly authorized to file the suit on behalf of the plaintiff. This objection is based on the premise that the Authorization Letter filed by the plaintiff in favour of Ms. Meena Bansal is not signed by the plaintiff on its own name, signatures and seal and in the absence of any Board Resolution and Minutes of meeting, the same is not effectual in law and the present suit is barred by Section 2 of the Power of Attorney Act, 1882.
39. The present suit has been filed by the Constituted Attorney, namely, Mrs. Meena Bansal on behalf of the plaintiff. The plaintiff has placed on record the Letter of Authorization dated 01.03.2017 in favour of Mrs. Meena Bansal as Ex. PW1/38.
CS (Comm.) No.: 425/23 Louis Vuitton Malletier vs. Shrey Katyal Page 33 of 39
40. Perusal of Letter of Authorization Ex. PW1/38 shows that one Sh. Mayank Vaid, Intellectual Property Director has been authorized by the plaintiff company to further authorize Mrs. Meera Bansal to do acts on behalf of the plaintiff company, inter alia, to file the present suit on behalf of the plaintiff. The same is on the letter head of the plaintiff company and bears the stamp of the plaintiff company. In view of the same, it cannot be said that there is no proper authorization in favour of Mrs. Meena Bansal.
41. Further, as noted above, Mrs. Meena Bansal was substituted by new Authorized Representative of the plaintiff namely, Sh. Kartik Malhotra who has been examined by the plaintiff as PW-1. He has placed on record the Power of Attorney executed by the plaintiff company in his favour which is Ex. PW1/35 wherein name of Mrs. Meena Bansal is also find mentioned. The said document Ex. PW1/35 has not been challenged by the defendant as he chose not to cross-examine the PW-1. Hence, there is no merit in the contention of the defendant that Mrs. Meena Bansal was not duly authorized to file the present suit. Accordingly, this issue is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
Issue No. 6Whether this court has got no territorial jurisdiction to try the present case?
42. The onus to prove this issue was on the defendant.
43. The defendant has taken an objection in the written CS (Comm.) No.: 425/23 Louis Vuitton Malletier vs. Shrey Katyal Page 34 of 39 statement that no cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this court nor the defendant nor the plaintiff works for gain within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court and hence this Court has got no territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit.
44. It is apposite here to quote the relevant provisions of law governing the jurisdiction of this Court.
Section 20 CPC reads as under:-
Other suits to be instituted where defendants reside or cause of action arises Subject to the limitations aforesaid, every suit shall be instituted in a Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction -
(a) The defendant, or each of the defendants where there are more than one, at the time of the commencement of the suit, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business, or personally works for gain; or
(b) any of the defendants, where there are more than one, at the time of the commencement of the suit, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business, or personally works for gain, provided that in such case either the leave of the Court is given, or the defendants who do not reside, or carry on business, or personally work for gain, as aforesaid, acquiesce in such institution; or
(c) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises.
45. Admittedly, the defendant is neither carrying out its business nor its office is situated within territorial jurisdiction of this Court. In view of the same, Section 20 (a) & (b) shall not apply in the present case. Therefore, it is to be seen as to whether or not any cause of action in part or wholly has arisen CS (Comm.) No.: 425/23 Louis Vuitton Malletier vs. Shrey Katyal Page 35 of 39 within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court and Section 20 (c) of the CPC shall govern jurisdiction of this Court.
46. With regard to the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, it is averred in the plaint that the defendant is selling, advertising, exposing for sale, marketing, soliciting the impugned goods bearing the impugned marks/ labels in the markets of South- West Delhi viz. Uttam Nagar, Bindapur, Janakpuri, Najafgarh etc. and other adjoining areas via its social media accounts such as Instagram and Facebook which are considered to be interactive websites and are accessible through any place including the area within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. Therefore, the whole or part cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court within the meaning of Section 20 (c) of CPC and thus this Court has got territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit. It is further averred that the plaintiff is also soliciting and offering its said goods bearing the said trademark/labels for sale in South West market inclduing Uttam Nagar, Bindapur, Janapuri, Najafgarh which fall within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court and also through Instagram, YouTube, Pinterest, twitter etc. and via its website i.e. https://in.louisvuitton.com/eng-in/homepage which is interactive in nature. It is also averred that the plaintiff has tremendous goodwill and reputation in its said goods bearing the said trademarks/labels on account of voluminous sales and advertisement within the territorial jurisdiction and the plaintiff's products and business are present in its physical store CS (Comm.) No.: 425/23 Louis Vuitton Malletier vs. Shrey Katyal Page 36 of 39 outlet at DLF Emporio, Nelson Mandela Marg, Vasant Kunj II, New Delhi - 70 which falls within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court and thus this Court has got the territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit within the meaning of Section 134 (2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and also under Section 62 (2) of the Copyright Act, 1957.
47. PW-1 Sh. Kartik Malhotra has deposed in his affidavit in evidence on the identical lines of the averments made in the plaint, inter alia, that the goods of the plaintiff bearing the said trademarks/labels and the impugned goods of the defendant bearing the impugned trademark/labels are sold, purchased, available and delivered through online marketplaces, which are interactive in nature and freely accessible within the jurisdiction of this Court. He has also placed on record the screenshots of the plaintiff's website as Ex. PW1/24, screenshots of the social media platforms such as Instagram, Facebook, Youtube, Twitter being operated by the plaintiff as Ex. PW1/26, screenshots of the the social medial platforms wherein the defendant is selling the impugned goods under the impugned marks/labels as Ex. PW1/31 and screenshots depicting the active solicitation of the impugned goods under the impugned marks/labels by the defendant through its Instagram for placement of orders and sale, in order to show that the goods of the plaintiff as well as the impugned goods of the defendant are accessible within territorial jurisdiction of this Court.
48. The whole testimony of PW-1 has remained unchallenged and uncontroverted as the defendant chose to CS (Comm.) No.: 425/23 Louis Vuitton Malletier vs. Shrey Katyal Page 37 of 39 cross-examine PW-1.
49. In the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the fact that evidence of PW-1 has remained unchallenged and uncontroverted, the Court is of the considered opinion that at least part of cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court and hence this Court has got territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit within the meaning of Section 20 (c) of the CPC. Consequently, this issue is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
RELIEF
50. As a sequel to my findings under Issue No. 1 to 4, the suit filed by the plaintiff is decreed in its favour and against the defendant and following reliefs are granted to the plaintiff: -
(1) A decree of permanent injunction is passed thereby restraining the defendant and all other acting for and on his behalf from manufacturing, marketing, selling, using, supplying, soliciting, displaying, advertising, importing/exporting or by any other mode or manner dealing with the impugned marks/labels/label , , , , , or any other trade mark/label identical with or deceptively similar to the Plaintiff's trademark/label CS (Comm.) No.: 425/23 Louis Vuitton Malletier vs. Shrey Katyal Page 38 of 39 , , , , , in relation to luxury Bags, Handbags, leather bags and all lifestyle goods, footwear, and accessories etc. and other allied/cognate goods or from doing any other acts or deeds amounting to infringement of plaintiff's registered trademarks; passing off and enabling others to pass off their goods and business as that of the plaintiff and infringement of plaintiff's copyrights in its labels;
(2) A decree of damages of Rs. 3,00,000/- is also passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
(3) The plaintiff is also allowed to destruct the infringed articles seized by the Local Commissioner during raid conducted at the premises of the defendant, after expiry of time to file the appeal against this judgment by the defendant.
(4) Cost of the suit is also awarded to the plaintiff.
51. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
52. File be consigned to Record Room, after due compliance.
Announced in the open Court Digitally
signed by
on 13th December, 2025 BALWANT
RAI
BALWANT
RAI BANSAL
Date:
BANSAL 2025.12.13
13:03:03
+0530
(Balwant Rai Bansal)
District Judge (Commercial Court)-02
South-West District, Dwarka Courts,
New Delhi
CS (Comm.) No.: 425/23
Louis Vuitton Malletier vs. Shrey Katyal Page 39 of 39