Name of author: Vaani Negi – Final-year B.A., LL.B. Student, University School of Law and Legal Studies (Main Campus), Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University, Delhi.
Keywords:
· Counterfeit Luxury
· Trademark Infringement
· Delhi High Court Ruling
· Intellectual Property Rights
· Legal Deterrence
Introduction and Factual Matrix
The replication of fashion garments occurs through various means, one of the most prominent being counterfeiting. In this practice, counterfeiters duplicate both the design and the brand logo, deceiving consumers into believing they are purchasing an authentic luxury product; or worse- selling them the counterfeit and having their approval. The counterfeit industry, particularly catering to young women, continues to flourish despite the fact that it blatantly violates intellectual property laws. It operates in broad daylight, and is met not with outrage but with indifference, or perhaps even an unconscious acceptance, owing to the normalcy it has achieved. Amidst this, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court has, time and again, taken steps to safeguard luxury brands from this widespread menace. Yet, despite legal crackdowns, these street markets remain flooded with knock-offs, particularly of handbags, clothing and accessories.
A notable example is the unauthorized use of the ‘LV’ monogram of Louis Vuitton. In its most recent ruling that upholds the sanctity of registered trademarks, the Delhi High Court has recently issued a strong judgment[i] against sellers of counterfeit Louis Vuitton products in Delhi’s Gaffar Market. This ruling not only reiterates the legal protections afforded to well-known trademarks but also signals a cultural and ethical shift in consumer behaviour, particularly among Delhi NCR’s youth, who have long enjoyed the cheap thrill of flaunting second and third-copy designer bags. With the court coming down heavily upon the infringers, the era of knockoff luxury might finally be coming to an end.
The suit in the present case was filed by Louis Vuitton Malletier, the globally renowned luxury fashion house, seeking a permanent injunction to restrain the infringement of its registered trademarks, including “LOUIS VUITTON” (wordmark), the “LV” logo, the “Toile monogram pattern,” the “Damier pattern,” the “LV Flower patterns,” and other trademarks registered in Classes 3, 14, 18, and 25. The plaintiff also sought relief against passing off, unfair competition, rendition of accounts of profits, and the delivery up of counterfeit goods.
To substantiate its claims, Louis Vuitton obtained court-appointed local commissioners, who conducted raids and seized a substantial quantity of fake Louis Vuitton products: Defendant 7 (Shop No. 39B) borne 14 counterfeit items, including handbags, purses, sunglasses, and other accessories; while Defendant 8 (Shop No. 39C): 16 counterfeit items, such as belts, wallets, and trolley bags. These findings left no doubt about the defendants’ involvement in trademark infringement, prompting the court to deliver a decisive verdict.
Consequently, the court ruled in favour of Louis Vuitton, imposing the following penalties: A permanent injunction against two defendants, restraining them from selling counterfeit Louis Vuitton product and a monetary penalty of ₹20,000 on one defendant and ₹22,000 on the other, payable to Louis Vuitton as compensation. The judgment reaffirms that Louis Vuitton’s trademarks are well-known and legally protected in India. The court recognized Louis Vuitton’s longstanding reputation and previous legal victories in similar counterfeit cases.
Why This Judgment Matters: A Blow to the Knockoff Market
This ruling comes at a significant time as it is intrinsic to protect the repute of the brand. Afterall, it is the trademark proprietor that bears the brunt of the consequences, particularly in the luxury market, where brand prestige is paramount. The counterfeit industry has evolved remarkably, with illicit manufacturers refining their craftsmanship to produce “super fakes” that closely mimic authentic luxury products.
Counterfeit goods are hardly a new phenomenon; they have been a staple of Indian street markets for years. Places like Palika Bazaar and Gaffar Market have earned a reputation as the go-to destinations for bargain hunters seeking knock-offs of high-end brands like Prada, Louis Vuitton, Gucci, and Scotch & Soda. Shoppers frequent these markets with the intent of finding replicas that come as close as possible to the originals, allowing them to enjoy the illusion of luxury, despite the fact that the brands themselves disapprove of the same and considers it as a violation (which it is).
The counterfeit market owes its survival perhaps to the fact that this trend is not just about affordability- it carries emotional weight and social currency. Owning a counterfeit designer item, for many, is less about deception and more about access, about feeling part of a world that would otherwise be out of reach. What was once a hush-hush practice has now become deeply ingrained in urban culture, even making its way into pop culture through light hearted skits by Delhi-based influencers like Kusha Kapila and Dolly Singh, who frequently reference the city’s bustling counterfeit hotspots like Rajouri Garden and Greater Kailash M-Block markets.
What is interesting to note is that this judgment is not without precedent. It follows the trajectory of a 2021 ruling[ii] by the Delhi High Court, in a case filed by Gucci, another global fashion house, which had sought and obtained an ex-parte injunction against a Delhi-based manufacturer accused of selling counterfeit versions of its products. The defendant was proceeded against ex-parte, they deliberately did not appear. A similar pattern emerged in the Louis Vuitton case, where the defendants include shop owners from Gaffar Market, Karol Bagh, a notorious hub for knockoff products in Delhi.
Despite being served legal notices, the defendants neither appeared before the court nor filed any written statements in their defence. Their silence was telling, perhaps an implicit acknowledgment of their unlawful activities. Consequently, the court, in such circumstances, proceed ex-parte under Order VIII Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), which permits the court to assume the plaintiff’s claims as uncontested in the absence of a response from the defendants.
Conclusion: The Future of Luxury in India
As a signatory to the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), India has pledged to uphold intellectual property rights. However, the unchecked rise of counterfeits poses a serious concern. If left unaddressed, it could ultimately drive away international luxury brands like Louis Vuitton, Hermès, and Chanel, discouraging them from investing in a market where their exclusivity and authenticity are constantly undermined.
Section 102 of the Trademarks Act, 1999[iii] (hereinafter, ‘the Act’) explicitly addresses the offence of counterfeiting. Section 103[iv] of the Act further reinforces anti-counterfeiting measures by imposing strict penalties. Those found guilty of counterfeiting fashion brand products can face imprisonment ranging from six months to three years, along with a fine of up to ₹2 lakh. Section 105 [v] imposes stricter penalties for repeat offenders. If a person previously convicted under Section 103 or 104 is found guilty of a similar offence again, they face a mandatory minimum imprisonment of one year, which may extend up to three years. Additionally, they must pay a fine ranging from ₹1 lakh to ₹2 lakh.
These provisions aim to deter offenders by enforcing harsh consequences for repeated trademark violations. While there is already a comprehensive and stringent legal framework in place to protect IP rights, perhaps, the need of the hour lies in its effective implementation. If courts remain reluctant to impose imprisonment instead of or in addition to fine, the rampant violation of trademark laws will persist. A mere fine is often inadequate, as offenders treat fines as just another cost of doing business, allowing them to repeatedly skirt the law. What India urgently needs is a pattern of robust deterrence, one that includes prison terms and the consequential social stigma that comes with it. The jail term provided under Section 105 for repeat offenders, could serve as a powerful warning. Shopkeepers dealing in counterfeit goods would think twice before engaging in such illegal trade if they faced the real prospect of incarceration rather than just a monetary penalty.
[i] Louis Vuitton Malletier v. Raj Belts, CS (COMM) 502 of 2017.
[ii] Guccio Gucci S.P.A. v. Intiyaz Sheikh, CS (COMM) NO. 2090/2019.
[iii] The Trademarks Act, 1999 (47 of 1999)s 102.
[iv] The Trademarks Act, 1999 (47 of 1999)s 103.
[v] The Trademarks Act, 1999 (47 of 1999)s 105.