Delhi High Court Orders Businessman To Pay ₹5lakh To Louis Vuitton For Selling Its Counterfeit Products

Posted on 22 February, 2023 by Irika

Delhi High Court ordered the owner of a small shop to pay Rs. 5 lakhs; if he did not, he would be sentenced to a week in civil prison for violating the court's earlier order of interim injunction and continuing to sell counterfeit goods. The judge bench made this observation after noting that counterfeiting was an extremely serious matter with ramifications that go far beyond the boundaries of the small shop of the petty counterfeiter.

Judge C. Hari Shankar's single-judge panel noted that the consequences of counterfeiting

“It is a commercial evil, which erodes brand value, amounts to duplicity with the trusting consumer, and, in the long run, has serious repercussions on the fabric of the national economy. A counterfeiter abandons, completely, any right to equitable consideration by a court functioning within confines of the rule of law. He is entitled to no sympathy, as he practises, knowingly and with complete impunity, falsehood and deception… the court is required to be economically and socially sensitised, and to send a deterrent message to others who indulge, or propose to indulge, in practice of counterfeiting,”the HC observed.

Adv Pravin Anand appeared for Louis Vuitton whereas Adv Kailash Sharma and Birender Bhatt appeared for Defendants.

The court noted that even after being forcibly stopped from doing so by HC in its ruling from September 2021, the store owner opted to carry on with his business of selling fake LV-branded items, which "augmented his responsibility." Louis Vuitton was bringing an application before the HC in its ongoing trademark infringement lawsuit against a number of small businesses.

The HC issued an interim order on September 23, 2021, prohibiting these entities from importing, manufacturing, selling, offering for sale, or otherwise dealing with the registered trademarks "Louis Vuitton" or the logo "LV" and any related monograms and patterns that infringe the company's trademark.

The defence attorney for Defendant 2 openly stated that his client had continued to sell belts with the LV logo even after the order's passage. Yet he asserted that his client is a paltry businessman who does his enterprise out of a modest store that has been rented.

The Court said that ordering the defendant to provide the plaintiff ₹5 lakh within four weeks would best uphold the interests of justice.

"I am of the opinion that the interests of justice would best be subserved if, in the present case, the defendant is directed to pay, to the plaintiff, Rs 5 lakh within a period of four weeks from today, failing which the proprietor of Defendant 2, shall suffer incarceration in civil prison in Tihar Jail for a period of one week," ordered the court.