Delhi High Court Awards ₹1.5 Lakh To Tommy Hilfiger Against Kolkata Trader Who Sold Fake Products
The Delhi High Court has recently held that a clear case of trademark infringement and passing off has been established against a Kolkata trader who was found supplying counterfeit Tommy Hilfiger products.
A bench of Justice Tejas Karia delivered the judgment on November 28, 2025, holding that the use of Hilfiger's registered marks on fake goods had deceived consumers into believing there was an association with the brand.
According to the facts placed before the Court, Tommy Hilfiger filed a suit seeking a permanent injunction to stop the unauthorised use of its marks, including TOMMY HILFIGER, TOMMY, TOMMY SPORT, TOMMY GIRL and related logos.
In December 2018, the court granted an ex parte ad interim injunction after noting that Partha Chatterjee, who runs Denim India, had not accepted service and had not appeared despite several attempts.
Hilfiger stated that it is a globally known lifestyle brand with significant goodwill, sales and a long-standing presence in India. It submitted that in January 2018, it discovered that Chatterjee was supplying counterfeit products and obtained samples of the infringing articles during a physical investigation.
Hilfiger argued that these goods were clearly counterfeit, bore identical marks without authorisation and were likely to cause confusion regarding source and origin.
The court noted that since Chatterjee had neither appeared nor filed written statement, the averments in the plaint and the supporting documents stood admitted. It held that Hilfiger had established registration, extensive use and goodwill in its marks.
The court found a clear case of infringement and passing off. It said Chatterjee was selling the same kind of goods to the same customers through the same market channels, and that his counterfeiting harmed Hilfiger's reputation and misled consumers into buying inferior fake products.
It observed, “The Defendant is not only riding on the immense and valuable goodwill and reputation enjoyed by the Plaintiff, but is also attempting to show association or nexus with the Plaintiff, where none exists. There is a strong likelihood that unwary consumers will be duped into buying the Infringing Products by believing them to be originating from the Plaintiff, which is detrimental to not only the reputation and goodwill of the Plaintiff, but is also detrimental to the consumers as they are being deceived into buying inferior quality products of the Defendant.”
On the issue of damages, the court relied on the ruling in Strix Ltd. v. Maharaja Appliances Ltd. and held that notional damages may be granted when detailed evidence is not led. It awarded Rs 1.5 lakhs in damages and permitted Hilfiger to recover the costs of the proceedings.
It directed that the matter be placed before the Joint Registrar for computation of costs.
Accordingly, the suit was disposed of.
Case Title: Tommy Hilfiger Europe BV vs Partha Chatterjee
Case Number: CS(COMM) 1302/2018
For the Plaintiff: Advocates Ashish Somari, Bhavya Verma and Chirayu Prahlad