The case involves a trademark and copyright infringement dispute initiated by Burberry Limited, a globally renowned luxury fashion brand, against multiple defendants, including Mayank Aggarwal, Rajesh Kumar, and Gaurav Mittal. The case primarily concerns the unauthorised use of Burberry’s distinctive trademarks, including its name, logo, and iconic check pattern, in the sale of counterfeit goods. The suit was filed under Sections 134 and 135 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, and Section 55 of the Copyright Act, 1957, seeking a permanent injunction, damages, and destruction of infringing products.
Burberry Limited, a UK-based company, has been a leader in the fashion industry for over a century, with trademarks registered across various jurisdictions, including India. The company has built a strong reputation globally for its high-end apparel, accessories, and fragrances, all distinguished by its proprietary designs and branding elements. The plaintiff contended that its trademarks and trade dress had acquired significant goodwill and were entitled to protection as well-known marks under Indian law.
The case began when Burberry discovered that the defendants were engaged in the sale and distribution of counterfeit Burberry-branded products in the Central Market of Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi. The plaintiff conducted market surveillance and obtained evidence, including samples of infringing goods, which were found to closely resemble genuine Burberry products in terms of branding, trade dress, and logos. Consequently, the plaintiff sought an interim injunction to restrain the defendants from continuing their infringing activities.
During the initial proceedings, the court appointed a local commissioner to inspect the premises of the defendants. The inspection confirmed that the defendants were engaged in the sale of counterfeit Burberry goods. Subsequently, the court granted an ex parte ad-interim injunction on December 22, 2018, prohibiting the defendants from using Burberry’s trademarks and trade dress in any manner
The first defendant, Mayank Aggarwal, contended that he was merely a retailer and had no involvement in the manufacturing of the counterfeit goods. However, the court noted that under the Trade Marks Act, liability for infringement extends to all parties involved in the sale and distribution of counterfeit products, including retailers. The second defendant, Rajesh Kumar, failed to appear before the court and was proceeded against ex parte. The third defendant, Gaurav Mittal, entered into a settlement agreement with the plaintiff, acknowledging his involvement and agreeing to cease all infringing activities.
The court examined several legal principles in determining Burberry’s claims. It referred to precedents such as Honda Giken Kogyo Kabushiki Kaisha vs Charanjit Singh & Ors. and Daimler Benz vs Hybo Hindustan, which establish that well-known trademarks are entitled to extensive protection, even against use in unrelated markets. The court emphasised that Burberry’s trademarks, being globally recognised, were susceptible to dilution and damage if unauthorised parties were allowed to exploit them.
One of the critical aspects of the case was the application of the doctrine of passing off. The court observed that the defendants’ use of identical marks and trade dress was likely to deceive consumers into believing that the counterfeit products were genuine Burberry goods. Citing the landmark ruling in Cadila Healthcare Ltd. vs Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd., the court reaffirmed that even a minor likelihood of confusion among consumers is sufficient to establish passing off.
In its final ruling, the court granted a permanent injunction against the defendants, prohibiting them from using Burberry’s trademarks, trade dress, and any deceptive variations thereof. The court also directed the defendants to deliver up all infringing goods for destruction under the supervision of a court-appointed authority. Furthermore, the court awarded damages to Burberry Limited, recognising the financial and reputational harm caused by the defendants’ actions.