Latest news with #AjayDigpaul
Indian Express
3 days ago
- Business
- Indian Express
Delhi HC upholds injunction order stopping luggage-maker VIP from using ‘Carlton' mark
A division bench of the Delhi High Court on Tuesday dismissed appeals challenging an injunction order against Indian luggage manufacturer VIP Industries from using the mark 'Carlton'. A division bench of Justices C Hari Shankar and Ajay Digpaul upheld a single judge's order of July 17, 2023, ruling that Carlton Shoes Limited (CSL) had 'goodwill of the CARLTON mark, as used by it in India, prior to the commencement of user of the CARLTON mark by VIP in 2006'. A single judge order of July 17, 2023, dealing with cross suits of infringement by Carlton Shoes Ltd (CSL), incorporated in UK in 1992, and VIP Industries had injuncted VIP from using the 'Carlton' mark in respect of goods covered by Class 18 and had rejected VIP's application for a similar injunction against CSL. Class 18 pertains to leather and imitations of leather, and goods made of these materials, and not included in other classes. In 2019, VIP had issued a legal notice to CSL, objecting to the use of 'Carlton' for bags, which VIP claimed to have been using for its bags and suitcases and other such items since 2006. VIP had contended that it had been using the 'Carlton' mark for luggage, or travel luggage, and enjoyed the goodwill in the said mark for over 15 years, whereas CSL had never used the 'Carlton' mark for luggage till 2019. It was argued that the goodwill earned by CSL in the 'Carlton' mark, by then, was only with respect to its use for footwear, and the goodwill earned by CSL by such use would not entitle them to maintain an action for passing off against VIP, even though there were some stray sales, by CSL, of Carlton purses and handbags. Both CSL and VIP possess registrations of the mark 'Carlton' in Class 18. The bench, deciding the appeals, framed the legal question: whether goodwill, for the purposes of determining a 'passing off' action, is of a mark, or of a mark in respect of particular goods or category of goods. The bench ruled that 'the goodwill that is required to be established in order to sustain a claim of passing off is goodwill in the mark, and not goodwill in the mark as used for any particular goods or services.' Noting that the finding that 'CSL having proved the existence of goodwill and reputation of the CARLTON mark, as used by it for more than 13 years prior to the commencement of user of the CARLTON mark by VIP for travel luggage, therefore, does not brook interference,' the court dismissed VIP's appeals.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
3 days ago
- Business
- Business Standard
Delhi High Court revives Crocs' plea against Indian footwear companies
The Delhi High Court on Tuesday revived a batch of pleas by the US company Crocs Inc against several Indian footwear companies for allegedly copying the unique shape and design of its footwear. A division bench of the Delhi High Court overturned a 2019 order of the single judge dismissing Crocs' batch of pleas against Bata India, Relaxo, Liberty and others. A bench of Justices Hari Shankar and Ajay Digpaul revived the US company's claims concerning the recognisable design and form of its foam clogs and ordered that the cases should now be sent to a single-judge bench for a full hearing on their merits. "We are constrained, therefore, to hold that, in declining to do so, and dismissing Crocs' suits as not maintainable, the learned Single Judge, in our respectful view, erred in law," the division bench of the Delhi HC said. Crocs had moved the Delhi High Court, arguing that several Indian footwear companies had passed off their products by imitating the distinct look of its foam clogs. The US company alleged that firms such as Bata India, Liberty Shoes, Relaxo Footwear, Action Shoes, Aqualite, and Bioworld Merchandising copied the shape and perforated pattern of its clogs, which it claimed qualifies as a shape trademark. Crocs had filed several lawsuits asking the court to permanently stop these companies from passing off their products as its own. Separate suits for design infringement under the Designs Act, 2000 were also filed, based on Crocs' registered designs. These cases were heard together. On 18 February 2019, a single judge dismissed all six passing-off suits at the initial stage and held that the claims were not maintainable because Crocs was trying to get ongoing trademark protection under common law for a design that had already received temporary protection under the Designs Act. On the issue of novelty and originality, the court had then said that the designs registered by Crocs were neither original nor novel, as they were not significantly distinguishable from products already existing in the market, and were mere 'trade variants' of a sandal, which did not deserve any exclusivity or monopoly.
Time of India
3 days ago
- Business
- Time of India
Delhi High Court revives Crocs' passing off petition against Bata, Liberty, others
The Delhi High Court has reinstated Crocs Inc's lawsuit against Bata India and other Indian footwear brands. Crocs alleges these companies are imitating the design of its foam clogs. The court overturned a previous order dismissing Crocs' petitions. It stated Crocs deserves a chance to prove its claims of passing off. Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads The division bench of the Delhi High Court on Tuesday revived Crocs Inc. USA's passing off petition filed against domestic footwear companies Liberty Shoes and others for allegedly manufacturing and selling footwear identical in shape and design to that of the Crocs' unique trade dress.A bench comprising Justices Hari Shankar and Ajay Digpaul set aside a single judge's February 18, 2019 order that had dismissed Crocs' five petitions as non-maintainable.'We do not think that this issue could have straightaway been decided by a mere reading of the plaint," the division bench said, adding Croc would have to be given an opportunity to establish that its claim for passing off was not based merely on copying, or imitation, of its registered design by domestic to the DB, passing off was a "sui generis common law remedy', aimed at protecting one's hard-earned goodwill and reputation from others who may deceitfully seek to capitalize on it. Passing off in trademark law refers to the act of one party misrepresenting their goods or services as those of another, leading to consumer confusion and potential harm to the other party's reputation and business, it Inc, USA had moved the HC alleging that a number of Indian footwear companies including Bata India Relaxo Footwear , Action Shoes, Aqualite, and Bioworld Merchandising had passed off products by imitating its distinct look of its foam clogs. It said that these India companies copied the overall structure and perforated pattern of its clogs, which are distinct and unique to its trade Crocs was the proprietor of the design in respect of its footwear in 2004, it did not possess any registration of the given trade dress as a trademark under the Trade Marks Act, Indian firms' adoption of the trade dress in respect of identical goods was dishonest, malafide and fraudulent, Crocs claimed in its petitions, adding that 'unwary purchasers in market and trade are being deceived and defrauded as to the origin of the goods and business. The defendant's gains are the plaintiffs losses.'Besides adoption of the trade dress, they have also blatantly copied the essential and striking features of plaintiffs' design and there malafide and dishonesty is apparent, manifest and striking, Crocs argued.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
3 days ago
- Business
- Business Standard
Delhi HC revives Crocs' plea against Indian footwear cos copying its design
The Delhi High Court on Tuesday revived a batch of pleas by the US company Crocs Inc against several Indian footwear companies for allegedly copying the unique shape and design of its footwear. A division bench of the Delhi High Court overturned a 2019 order of the single judge dismissing Crocs' batch of pleas against Bata India, Relaxo, Liberty and others. A bench of Justices Hari Shankar and Ajay Digpaul revived the US company's claims concerning the recognisable design and form of its foam clogs and ordered that the cases should now be sent to a single-judge bench for a full hearing on their merits. "We are constrained, therefore, to hold that, in declining to do so, and dismissing Crocs' suits as not maintainable, the learned Single Judge, in our respectful view, erred in law," the division bench of the Delhi HC said. Crocs had moved the Delhi High Court, arguing that several Indian footwear companies had passed off their products by imitating the distinct look of its foam clogs. The US company alleged that firms such as Bata India, Liberty Shoes, Relaxo Footwear, Action Shoes, Aqualite, and Bioworld Merchandising copied the shape and perforated pattern of its clogs, which it claimed qualifies as a shape trademark. Crocs had filed several lawsuits asking the court to permanently stop these companies from passing off their products as its own. Separate suits for design infringement under the Designs Act, 2000 were also filed, based on Crocs' registered designs. These cases were heard together. On 18 February 2019, a single judge dismissed all six passing-off suits at the initial stage and held that the claims were not maintainable because Crocs was trying to get ongoing trademark protection under common law for a design that had already received temporary protection under the Designs Act. On the issue of novelty and originality, the court had then said that the designs registered by Crocs were neither original nor novel, as they were not significantly distinguishable from products already existing in the market, and were mere 'trade variants' of a sandal, which did not deserve any exclusivity or monopoly. Passing off in trademark law refers to the act of one party misrepresenting its goods or services as those of another, leading to consumer confusion and potential harm to the other party's reputation and business. It primarily protects unregistered trademarks by preventing unfair competition.
Mint
3 days ago
- Business
- Mint
Delhi High Court stays ₹340-crore damages order against Amazon in trademark case
The Delhi High Court has delivered Amazon Technologies, a subsidiary of global e-commerce giant Amazon Inc., a major reprieve in a trademark infringement case against it. On Tuesday, a division bench of the high court stayed a single-judge order that had directed the company to pay nearly ₹ 340 crore ($39 million) in damages to Lifestyle Equities for trademark infringement involving the Beverly Hills Polo Club brand. The bench of justices Hari Shankar and Ajay Digpaul granted the interim stay without requiring Amazon to make a pre-deposit. However, Amazon has been asked to undertake that it will pay the damages if the final decision goes against it. The court clarified that the stay order would not influence the outcome of the appeal. The dispute began in 2020, when Lifestyle Equities a UK company that owns and manages the Beverly Hills Polo brand filed a trademark infringement suit against Amazon Technologies and others, alleging unauthorised use of a deceptively similar mark on apparel and other products sold on Amazon platforms. The company claimed the infringing trademark appeared on apparel manufactured and sold by Amazon Technologies under its Symbol brand, and that Cloudtail India, a major seller on was also involved in the sales. In October 2020 the high court issued an interim injunction restraining Amazon and Cloudtail from using the mark and ordered that the infringing listings be removed. Amazon Technologies failed to appear at the proceedings and was eventually proceeded against ex-parte. Meanwhile, Cloudtail India admitted it had sold infringing products between 2015 and July 2020, earning total sales of ₹ 23.9 lakh with a profit margin around 20%. While Cloudtail offered to settle, mediation attempts failed, leading the court to pass a decree against Cloudtail and awarding ₹ 4.78 lakh in damages to Lifestyle Equities. In its final judgement on 25 February 2025, the single-judge bench held Amazon liable for about ₹ 340 crore in total damages and costs, saying that its close commercial relationship with Cloudtail made it directly responsible for the infringement. The court examined the Amazon-Cloudtail brand license and distribution agreement, noting that it granted Cloudtail extensive rights to use Amazon's trademarks and branding, undermining Amazon's defence of being a mere intermediary. The court awarded $5 million for Lifestyle's additional advertising and promotional expenses incurred to protect its brand reputation, and $33.78 million in compensatory damages for lost royalties, bringing the total to $38.78 million (around ₹ 336 crore) plus litigation costs.
