Christian Louboutin Sas v. Nakul Bajaj, 2018 SCC OnLine Del 12215
FACTS:
- The Plaintiff Company Christian Louboutin is based on the name of its founder, namely Mr. Christian Louboutin, a famous designer of high-end luxury products. The Plaintiff claimed that the name, likeness and photographs of Mr. Louboutin enjoy goodwill and protection under the Trademarks Act, 1999. The Plaintiff further claimed that its products are sold only through an authorized network of exclusive distributors.
- According to Plaintiff, the Defendants were operating a website by the name “www.darveys.com” and alleged that the Defendants offered for sale and sold various products on their website bearing the luxury brands/names of Plaintiff. The Defendants’ website contained the complete “Christian Louboutin” product catalogue. The website further claimed that the products were 100% authentic. As per the plaint, the goods of the Defendants are impaired or are counterfeits.
- According to the Plaintiff, the Defendants’ website gave an impression that it is in some manner sponsored, affiliated and approved for sale of a variety of luxury products bearing the mark of the Plaintiffs genuine products. This resulted in infringement of the trademark rights of the Plaintiff, violation of personality rights of Mr. Christian Louboutin and dissolution of the luxury status enjoyed by their products and brands.
- While the Court had granted interim relief in 2014, the Plaintiffs pleaded Section 79 of the IT Act and prayed for permanent injunction before the High Court of Delhi.
- The Inwood Test, laid out in the case of Inwood Laboratories Inc. v. Ives Laboratories Inv. (1982) is applied primarily to merchants and original producers of goods to monitor and control the instrumentality of infringements. The crux of the Test lies in the general knowledge or awareness that a service is being used in order to sell counterfeit goods.
ISSUE:
- Whether the use of the Plaintiff’s logos, marks and images by the Defendants is protected under Section 79 of the Information Technology Act 2000?
- Whether the Plaintiffs are entitled to relief, if yes, in what terms?
HELD:
- The High Court of Delhi dismissed the interim application and the suit and ordered the Defendants to disclose complete details of its sellers, in addition to certificates revealing the genuineness of the products from the sellers themselves. The Court also instructed the Defendants to remove all meta-tags and disclose the authenticity of not only the products but also the sellers.
- The Bench observed that where Defendant was using meta-tags, this allowed Defendant to enjoy business and privileges on the name and reputation of Plaintiff, and such a violation of a trademark could not be protected under Section 79 of the IT Act 2000.