IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Decided On: 22.01.2016
Appellants: Luxottica
Group S.P.A.
Vs.
Respondent: Craftsviila Handicrafts Private Limited and Ors.
Judges/Coram:
Counsels:
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: Akhil Sibal , S.K.
Bansal , Rishi Bansal , Ajay
Amitabh Suman and Vinay Shukla , Advocates
ORDER
I.A. No. 1014/2016
1. Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. Compliance be made within four weeks.
I.A. No. 1012/2016
3. The plaintiff seeks leave to file additional documents.
4. 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 CPC)
5. Issue summons in the suit and notice in the applications to the defendants returnable on 05.05.2016.
6. 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.
7. 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:
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. Compliance of Order
XXXIX Rule 3 CPC be made within a week.
