Local Commissioner's Report Can Form Basis Of Decree In Trademark Infringement Suit: Delhi Commercial Court
The Commercial Court at Saket, New Delhi, has decreed a trademark and copyright infringement suit filed by Luxottica Group S.P.A., proprietor of the globally renowned RAY-BAN brand, against traders found dealing in counterfeit eyewear bearing the identical mark.
The Court noted that the plaintiff had established its statutory and common law rights in the RAY-BAN trademark through extensive registrations, longstanding use, and substantial goodwill and reputation associated with the mark.
The Court placed significant reliance on the report of the Local Commissioner, who had been appointed at the initial stage of the proceedings and had seized a large quantity of infringing products from the defendants' premises. Observing that the defendants failed to effectively contest the proceedings and adduce evidence in support of their defence, the Court held that the evidence on record established infringement, passing off, and violation of the plaintiff's trademark and copyright rights.
While affirming that a Local Commissioner's report constitutes substantive evidence under Order XXVI Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Court reiterated that examination of the Local Commissioner is not mandatory where the report remains unchallenged. In this regard, the Court relied on Levi Strauss & Co. v. Rajesh Agarwal and other precedents of the Delhi High Court.
The Court also upheld its territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit, noting that the plaintiff's products were available through interactive websites and online marketplaces accessible within its jurisdiction. It observed that the impugned products had been sold within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court and that online accessibility of the plaintiff's business further supported the exercise of jurisdiction.
Consequently, the Court granted a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from manufacturing, marketing, selling, or dealing in goods bearing the impugned RAY-BAN mark or any deceptively similar variant. The Court further directed delivery-up of the infringing goods and awarded ₹1.5 lakh as notional damages and ₹1 lakh towards costs in favour of the plaintiff.
The judgment is significant for brand owners combating counterfeiting, as it reaffirms that a Local Commissioner's report constitutes substantive evidence capable of forming the basis of a decree in trademark infringement actions. It also strengthens the jurisprudence on territorial jurisdiction in intellectual property disputes involving interactive websites and online marketplace sales.
Case No.: CS (COMM) No. 345/2019
Case Title: M/s Luxottica Group S.P.A. v. Muneet Kumar & Ors.
Appearance
- For the Plaintiff: Mr. Mankaran Singh, Advocate
- For the Defendants: Defendants were ex parte