The case of Louis Vuitton Malletier vs Rahul Bose revolves around the plaintiff, Louis Vuitton Malletier, a globally renowned luxury fashion house, seeking legal recourse against the defendant, Rahul Bose, for trademark infringement, passing off, and unauthorised use of its iconic trademarks. The plaintiff, incorporated under French law, is the proprietor of the well-known trademarks “Louis Vuitton” and the “LV” logo, which have been in use since 1854. The defendant, operating under the name Luxanova, was accused of manufacturing, marketing, and selling counterfeit luxury products, including handbags and accessories, bearing deceptively similar trademarks to those of Louis Vuitton.
The plaintiff’s claims were grounded in both statutory and common law rights, asserting that the defendant’s activities not only infringed upon its registered trademarks but also amounted to passing off, causing significant harm to its reputation and goodwill. The plaintiff highlighted its extensive global presence, including online platforms and social media, and emphasised the distinctiveness and exclusivity of its trademarks. To substantiate its claims, the plaintiff conducted a test purchase of an “LV Speedy 25 (Monogram) bag” from the defendant’s website, which was later confirmed as counterfeit by the plaintiff’s head office. The plaintiff also presented evidence of the defendant’s misleading claims of selling authentic products at discounted prices, which were found to be false.
The defendant, despite being served notice, failed to effectively contest the suit. His written statement was struck off by the court on November 5, 2024, due to non-compliance with procedural requirements. This left the plaintiff’s evidence unchallenged, including the testimony of its witness and a plethora of documentary evidence, such as trademark registration certificates, financial statements, and authentication reports. The court noted that the defendant’s defence was struck off, and he did not cross-examine the witness or present any evidence in his favour.
The court framed three key issues: whether the plaintiff was entitled to a permanent injunction, rendition of accounts, and damages amounting to INR 5,10,000. In its analysis, the court found that the plaintiff had unequivocally established its ownership of the trademarks, their validity, and their longstanding reputation. The defendant’s use of identical or deceptively similar marks was deemed intentional and fraudulent, aimed at exploiting the plaintiff’s goodwill. The court held that such actions constituted trademark infringement and passing off, warranting a permanent injunction to restrain the defendant from further violations.
On the issue of damages, the plaintiff admitted that it had not provided concrete evidence to substantiate the claimed compensatory damages of INR 5,10,000. However, it argued for punitive damages to deter such infringements in the future. The court, referencing the precedent set in Microsoft Corporation vs Kurapati Venkata Jagdeesh Babu, emphasised the importance of punitive damages in intellectual property cases to discourage willful violations. The court awarded INR 3,00,000 as punitive damages, citing the need to penalise the defendant for his blatant infringement and to uphold the integrity of trademark laws.
In its final judgment, the court granted a decree of permanent injunction, restraining the defendant and his associates from manufacturing, selling, or advertising any products bearing the plaintiff’s trademarks or any deceptively similar marks. Additionally, the plaintiff was awarded INR 3,00,000 in damages and the costs of the suit. The court underscored the significance of protecting intellectual property rights, especially in cases involving well-known brands, to prevent consumer confusion and maintain fair trade practices.
The judgment serves as a robust affirmation of the legal protections afforded to trademark owners in India. It highlights the judiciary’s willingness to impose punitive measures against counterfeiters, thereby safeguarding the interests of both brands and consumers. In conclusion, the case provides a vital judgment that reinforces the legal framework against trademark infringement in India. It sets a precedent for awarding punitive damages in cases of wilful violations, sending a clear message to counterfeiters about the severe consequences of their actions. The judgment not only protects the plaintiff’s intellectual property but also upholds the broader principles of fairness and integrity in commercial transactions.
