M/S LUXOTTICA GROUP S.P.A Vs M/S CRAFTSVIILA HANDICRAFTS PRIVATE LIMITED AND OTHERS

$~30.

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+	CS(COMM) 48/2016
	M/S LUXOTTICA GROUP S.P.A		..... Plaintiff
	Through: Mr. Akhil	Sibal,	Mr. S.K. Bansal,
	Mr.Rishi Bansal, Mr. Ajay Amitabh
	Suman &	Mr.	Vinay Shukla,
	Advocates.
	versus
	M/S CRAFTSVIILA HANDICRAFTS PRIVATE LIMITED
	AND OTHERS		..... Defendants
	Through:

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI

O R D E R % 22.01.2016

I.A. No.1014/2016

Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

Compliance be made within four weeks.

I.A. No. 1012/2016

The plaintiff seeks leave to file additional documents.

For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed, subject

to all just exceptions.

CS(COMM) 48/2016 and I.A. Nos.1011/2016 (under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 CPC) & 1013/2016 (under Section 80(2) CPC)

Issue summons in the suit and notice in the applications to the

defendants returnable on 05.05.2016.

The case of the plaintiff is that it is engaged in the business of

manufacturing wide range of goods related to eyewear, including but not limited to lenses, sunglasses, optical frames and related goods. It is offering services in connection with the said goods. The plaintiff claims to be the proprietor of the trade mark Ray-Ban. The plaintiff also claims to hold the copyright in the original artistic works contained in the stylised manner in which Ray-Ban is used in its mark.

The Plaintiff claims that defendants No.1 to 7 are engaged in the business of Internet commerce on their websites having the following domain names:

Defendant No.1	www.craftsvilla.com
Defendant No.2	www.stylemyway.com
Defendant No.3	www.99labels.com
Defendant No.4	www.homeandbazar.com
Defendant No.5	www.ealpha.com
Defendant No.6	www.ioffer.com
Defendant No.7	www.mallofluxury.com

Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that qua defendant No.7, the plaintiff has not been able to locate the name of the domain name, or the owner in the ‘whois directory’ and, therefore, an imaginary name John Doe has been used.

The grievance of the plaintiff is that the defendants No.1 to 7 are engaged in marketing counterfeit products with the trade mark of the plaintiff, namely eyewear and sunglasses. The plaintiff states that the cease and desist notices issued to the defendants have either been ignored, or not replied to. However, the said defendants continue to market and sell counterfeit products of the plaintiff.

Defendants No.8 & 9 are the Department of Telecommunication (DoT) and the Department of Electronics and Information Technology. They have been impleaded as defendants to seek enforcement of the injunction orders that may be passed by this Court. The plaintiff has produced on record and shown to the Court the purchases of the products purchased from defendant No.3 and the expert report in respect of the said product, which states that the product is counterfeit.

Prima-facie, I am satisfied that the plaintiff has made out a case for grant of an ex-parte ad interim order of injunction. Accordingly, till the next date of hearing, there shall be an injunction in terms of prayers (a) (i), (ii) & (iii). The defendants No.8 & 9 are directed to ensure compliance of this order by taking appropriate steps.

Compliance of Order XXXIX Rule 3 CPC be made within a week. Dasti.

VIPIN SANGHI, J

JANUARY 22, 2016

B.S. Rohella