Delhi High Court Bars Former Distributor from Selling CREED Perfume, Awards Rs 37.42 Lakh in Damages
The Delhi High Court has granted a permanent injunction in favor of Fontaine Limited, owner of the luxury perfume brand CREED, restraining a former distributor from selling CREED products or using the CREED trademark after the expiry of their distribution agreement. The court also awarded Fontaine damages of Rs 37.42 lakh and legal costs of Rs 7.97 lakh for the unauthorized use of the...
The Delhi High Court has granted a permanent injunction in favor of Fontaine Limited, owner of the luxury perfume brand CREED, restraining a former distributor from selling CREED products or using the CREED trademark after the expiry of their distribution agreement.
The court also awarded Fontaine damages of Rs 37.42 lakh and legal costs of Rs 7.97 lakh for the unauthorized use of the CREED trademark.
A single bench of Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora passed the order on November 14, 2025, allowing the Fontaine Ltd.'s application for passing a summary judgment.
Fontaine Limited, which acquired global rights through IP assignment agreements executed in 2020, succeeded its predecessor, Erol International Ltd., which had entered into a distribution agreement with the former distributor-Berkeley Beauty Brands Ltd. The distributor operated the CREED store at Chanakya Mall, New Delhi.
The distribution agreement expired in August 2022, after which the distributor was contractually required to stop using the CREED trademark and return all stock and promotional materials. Instead, it allegedly continued selling CREED products without authorization through its Chanakya Mall store and other channels.
A Local Commissioner appointed by the court in August 2023 found CREED-branded materials, packaging, and a product list showing unsold inventory at the distributor's store premises.
The court referred to the ruling in Su-Kam Power Systems Ltd. v. Kunwer Sachdev to reiterate the principles governing the grant of summary judgment, noting that such relief can be granted where the court finds that the defending party has no real prospect of successfully contesting the claim” and that there is “no compelling reason for the matter to proceed to oral evidence.
Considering the admissions made by Berkeley and its no objection to grant of permanent injunction decree, the court noted that this case needed no trial and summary judgment could be passed.
The court observed that the distributor continued selling CREED products even after the termination of the agreement and misrepresented itself as an authorised retailer by using the CREED trademark at the store and on WhatsApp.
“In the present suit, the activities of Defendants, after the expiry of the Distribution Agreement, not only violates the terms of the said agreement, but also violates the Plaintiff's proprietary rights in its trademark CREED. The fact that Defendants are repeat violators has already been noted above. Such mala fide actions of the Defendants should be deterred, so that no such unauthorised and unlawful acts occur in future.”, the Court said.
Applying the principles for quantifying damages in infringement cases as laid down in Koninklijke Philips v. Amazestore, Aero Club v. M/s Sahara Belts, the court awarded Fontaine Ltd. damages of Rs 37.42 lakhs representing the profit margin on the illegally sold CREED products along with legal costs of nearly Rs 8 lakhs.The court also directed delivery-up of the products and packaging seized by the Local Commissioner to Fontaine Ltd.
Consequently, the suit was decreed in favour of Fontaine Ltd., granting a permanent injunction along with damages and costs.
Case Title: Fontaine Limited v. Berkeley Beauty Brands Private Limited & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1525
Case Number: CS(COMM) 564/2023
For Plaintiff: Advocates Abhijnan Jha, Sadhvi Chhabra and Pranav Tomar
For Defendants: Advocates Gaurav Gupta, Nikhil Kohli, Tushar Mudgil and Kushank Garg