Latest news with #CHariShankar
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.
The Print
4 days ago
- Business
- The Print
Delhi HC stays order directing Amazon to pay Rs 340 cr for infringing trademark
The decision of a bench comprising Justice C Hari Shankar and Justice Ajay Digpaul came on the plea against a single judge's order directing Amazon Technologies to pay Lifestyle Equities damages of 39 million dollars after finding that Amazon infringed upon its 'Beverly Hills Polo Club' trademark. New Delhi, Jul 1 (PTI) The Delhi High Court on Tuesday stayed an order directing Amazon Technologies Inc to pay around Rs 340 crore as damages and costs for trademark infringement of the luxury lifestyle brand, Beverly Hills Polo Club. 'The considerations outlined herein above make out, in our considered opinion, an exceptional case, in which it would be a complete travesty of justice to require the appellant Amazon Tech to deposit, or secure, any part of the amount decreed by the impugned judgment, in order to maintain its appeal,' the bench said on Tuesday. The court held there was no specific finding by the single judge and that it was largely generalised in nature, concentrating on the phenomenon of e-infringement and reflect a view that, if Amazon Tech desired, it could infringe, rather than that it did infringe. It did not find any prima facie sustainable allegation of involvement by Amazon in any infringement of Lifestyle's registered trademark. 'This, therefore, is not merely a case in which damages have been awarded against Amazon Tech without any finding, by the learned Single Judge, of involvement, in the alleged infringing activities, but is, in fact, a case where no such pleadings exist,' the court said. In 2020, Lifestyle Equities filed a trademark infringement suit against Amazon Technologies and others alleging that they infringed upon its registered 'BEVERLY HILLS POLO CLUB' logo/device marks by using a deceptively similar mark on apparel and other products sold on their platforms. It was claimed that Amazon was manufacturing and selling products under the brand 'Symbol' with the infringing mark, and that Cloudtail India, operating on the marketplace, was also involved in the sale of these infringing products. PTI UK UK AMK AMK This report is auto-generated from PTI news service. ThePrint holds no responsibility for its content.
India Gazette
4 days ago
- Business
- India Gazette
Delhi HC stays operation of order to Amazon to pay Rs 339 crores to Beverly Hills Polo Club over trademark infringement
New Delhi [India], July 1 (ANI): The Delhi High Court on Tuesday granted an interim stay on the operation of a single judge order imposing heavy damages and costs of over Rs 339 crores on Amazon in a case of trademark infringement. The High Court in February 2025 had directed Amazon Technology Inc. to pay the amount for infringement of the luxury brand Beverly Hills Polo Club (BHPC) owned by Lifestyle Equities. The division bench of Justices C Hari Shankar and Ajay Digpaul passed the order granting an interim stay. Amazon had challenged the judgment passed by the single-judge bench on February 25, 2025. The High Court said that Amazon is not required to pay an amount for the interim stay. Though it would satisfy the damages if there is an order against it. The detailed order is to be uploaded by the High Court. Earlier, a Single judge had passed the judgment in favour of BHPC and against Amazon Technology Inc. The court had said, 'Considering the fact that the Defendants have indulged in deliberate and wilful infringement as also the various factors which are set out herein above, the royalties that the Plaintiffs would have earned based on their business plan which they clearly achieved in the first year is a reasonable measure of damages in the present case in order to compensate the Plaintiffs,' 'A decree of damages to the tune of $38.78 million, as of the date, equal to 336,02,87,000.00 is granted in favour of the Plaintiffs against Defendant No.1. (Amazon Technology Inc).' A single judge held in the judgment passed on February 25. The bench had also said that If the said amount is paid within three months, no interest would be liable to be paid. However, if the same is not paid by the Defendant, interest at the rate of 5% per annum would be payable from the date of this judgment until the full realisation of the said amount. The bench had also passed a decree of costs to the tune of Rs 3,23,10,966.60 along with the Court Fee. This suit was filed by Plaintiff Lifestyle Equities C.V. (LECV) and Lifestyle Licensing B.V. (LLBV) in 2020, seeking a permanent injunction and damages against the Defendants for infringement of their registered trademark, Beverly Hills Polo Club (BHPC). The allegation in the plaint was that the three Defendants have engaged in activities that constitute a violation of the exclusive rights in the BHPC logo mark. The Plaintiffs had asserted that they are the rightful proprietors of the BHPC mark, which enjoys extensive goodwill and recognition in the domestic and international markets. It was contended that the Defendants were unlawfully using a mark identical or deceptively similar to the Plaintiffs' trademark, thereby violating their statutory and common law rights. It was stated that the horse device is a prominent part of the trademark. The word mark, along with the logo, is a registered trademark of the Plaintiff in various countries of the world. They had submitted that they are the registered proprietors of various marks, including the device mark, in approximately 91 countries, including the USA, UK, India, UAE, Nepal, Mexico, Germany, etc. As per the plaint, Defendant No.1 (Amazon Technology Inc.) was dealing with apparel products under. The private label- 'Symbol', consisting of a horse device mark almost identical to the BHPC logo device, thereby leading to infringement and unauthorised use. Defendant No.2-Cloudtail India Private Limited is alleged to have acted as the retailer of the said infringing apparel products, making them available for sale on the e-commerce platform which is managed and operated by Defendant No.3 Amazon Seller Services Private Limited. It was contended by the Plaintiffs that such unauthorised use of the infringing marks on the Defendant's platform constitutes trademark infringement and misrepresentation, causing consumer confusion and dilution of the Plaintiffs' mark and goodwill. (ANI)
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
4 days ago
- Business
- Business Standard
HC stays order asking Amazon to pay ₹339 cr to polo club in trademark row
The Delhi High Court on Tuesday granted an interim stay on the operation of a single judge order imposing heavy damages and costs of over Rs 339 crores on Amazon in a case of trademark infringement. The High Court in February 2025 had directed Amazon Technology Inc. to pay the amount for infringement of the luxury brand Beverly Hills Polo Club (BHPC) owned by Lifestyle Equities. The division bench of Justices C Hari Shankar and Ajay Digpaul passed the order granting an interim stay. Amazon had challenged the judgment passed by the single-judge bench on February 25, 2025. The High Court said that Amazon is not required to pay an amount for the interim stay. Though it would satisfy the damages if there is an order against it. The detailed order is to be uploaded by the High Court. Earlier, a Single judge had passed the judgment in favour of BHPC and against Amazon Technology Inc. The court had said, "Considering the fact that the Defendants have indulged in deliberate and wilful infringement as also the various factors which are set out herein above, the royalties that the Plaintiffs would have earned based on their business plan which they clearly achieved in the first year is a reasonable measure of damages in the present case in order to compensate the Plaintiffs," "A decree of damages to the tune of $38.78 million, as of the date, equal to ₹336,02,87,000.00 is granted in favour of the Plaintiffs against Defendant No.1. (Amazon Technology Inc)." A single judge held in the judgment passed on February 25. The bench had also said that if the said amount is paid within three months, no interest would be liable to be paid. However, if the same is not paid by the Defendant, interest at the rate of 5 per cent per annum would be payable from the date of this judgment until the full realisation of the said amount. The bench had also passed a decree of costs to the tune of Rs 3,23,10,966.60 along with the Court Fee. This suit was filed by Plaintiff Lifestyle Equities C.V. (LECV) and Lifestyle Licensing B.V. (LLBV) in 2020, seeking a permanent injunction and damages against the Defendants for infringement of their registered trademark, Beverly Hills Polo Club (BHPC). The allegation in the plaint was that the three Defendants have engaged in activities that constitute a violation of the exclusive rights in the BHPC logo mark. The Plaintiffs had asserted that they are the rightful proprietors of the BHPC mark, which enjoys extensive goodwill and recognition in the domestic and international markets. It was contended that the Defendants were unlawfully using a mark identical or deceptively similar to the Plaintiffs' trademark, thereby violating their statutory and common law rights. It was stated that the horse device is a prominent part of the trademark. The word mark, along with the logo, is a registered trademark of the Plaintiff in various countries of the world. They had submitted that they are the registered proprietors of various marks, including the device mark, in approximately 91 countries, including the USA, UK, India, UAE, Nepal, Mexico, Germany, etc. As per the plaint, Defendant No.1 (Amazon Technology Inc.) was dealing with apparel products under. The private label- 'Symbol', consisting of a horse device mark almost identical to the BHPC logo device, thereby leading to infringement and unauthorised use. Defendant No.2-Cloudtail India Private Limited is alleged to have acted as the retailer of the said infringing apparel products, making them available for sale on the e-commerce platform which is managed and operated by Defendant No.3 Amazon Seller Services Private Limited. It was contended by the Plaintiffs that such unauthorised use of the infringing marks on the Defendant's platform constitutes trademark infringement and misrepresentation, causing consumer confusion and dilution of the Plaintiffs' mark and goodwill. (Only the headline and picture of this report may have been reworked by the Business Standard staff; the rest of the content is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)
Hindustan Times
4 days ago
- Business
- Hindustan Times
Delhi HC stays order asking Amazon to pay ₹340 cr to apparel brand in trademark case
The Delhi high court on Tuesday stayed a single judge bench's order directing e-commerce giant Amazon to pay ₹ 340 crore damages to Amsterdam-based apparel brand Lifestyle Equities in a trademark infringement suit. Amazon's appeal will be next heard on October 19. (Delhi HC website) The verdict was passed by a bench of justices C Hari Shankar and Ajay Digpaul. The court passed the verdict in the e-commerce giant's application seeking a stay of Justice Prathiba M Singh's February 25 ruling. The application was preferred in Amazon's appeal against the verdict in which Justice Singh had concluded that Amazon had infringed upon Beverly Hills Polo Club (BHPC) trademark, and its actions amounted to 'blatant infringement' in the e-commerce space. Also Read: Delhi HC allows 16-year-old rape survivor to terminate 26-week pregnancy The 85-page ruling noted that Amazon had licensed the use of its brand 'SYMBOL'- consisting of a horse device mark, to Cloudtail India Private Limited, by way of Amazon Brand License and Distribution Agreement and the same indicated that the e-commerce giant retained significant control over Cloudtail's branding and distribution activities. The single judge concluded that the horse device logo, goods and the trade channels were identical to Lifestyler's BHPC logo as she stated, 'While licensing the word mark SYMBOL, Amazon would be unable to distance itself from the use of the accompanying horse logo device mark.' In its petition before the division bench, the e-commerce giant represented by senior advocate Arvind Nigam and Neeraj Kishan Kaul had asserted that the order was passed ex-parte, without granting it an opportunity of hearing. Nigam further submitted that Lifestyle in its suit before the single bench had failed to provide any evidence regarding his client's wrongdoing, but the single judge found wrongdoing on his client's part. Kaul submitted that his client was only a repository of its trademarks, only lent the same for use to authorised owners and was not involved in manufacturing T-shirts. Lifestyle represented by senior advocate Gaurav Pachnanda had argued that Amazon had full knowledge of the proceedings and cannot argue that the order was passed 'ex-parte' (without hearing the other side) since they chose not to appear despite issuance of summons. Pachnanda further argued that the court had the power to grant conditional stay, despite the order being passed ex-parte. The court while reserving verdict in Amazon's stay application on May 7 had opined that the trial before the single judge was 'one sided' since it proceeded behind Amazon's back considering the version given by Lifestyle as 'gospel truth'. The bench said, 'It's an extremely strange situation. We're dealing with a situation whether he (Amazon) should be asked to submit security. It's not even adversarial. It's one sided. He (Amazon) proceeded ex parte. You (lifestyle) are all alone in the world, in the absence of any defendant, plaintiff (lifestyle) alone proceeds on the matter & gets a decree of ₹ 340 crore. It's just your version before the single judge for whatever reason. It's just your version before the single judge which is treated as gospel truth,' the bench told Pachnanda. It added, 'You (Lifestyle) are the ancient mariners. The fact of the matter is at this stage, it's a case where the entire trial has proceeded behind their (Amazon's) back. It's a completely one sided trial. It's not just the question of whether they were absent, but it's also based on the material on which they had no opportunity to…. (prove evidence against them)' Amazon's appeal will be next heard on October 19.
