The present suit was filed by the Plaintiff, Luxottica Group S.P.A., a world leader in the eyewear industry and the owner of the well-known “Ray-Ban” trademark, against the Defendants, Iswar Opticals, K.T.N. Opticals, and others, for trademark infringement, passing off, and violation of copyright.
In July 2019, Luxottica discovered that Iswar Opticals were allegedly involved in the manufacturing, sale, and distribution of counterfeit eyewear products using marks deceptively similar to “Ray-Ban,” such as “Raybon,” “Raydon,” and “Red-Ban.” After appointing a Local Commissioner, three additional defendants (Defendants 2, 3, and 4) were also found to be involved in the infringing activities.
Luxottica established its global reputation and the long-standing use of the “Ray-Ban” trademark, acquired from Bausch & Lomb, with registrations in several jurisdictions, including India. The Court accepted the plaintiff’s claims based on unchallenged testimony and evidence, including a Local Commissioner’s report that confirmed the seizure of thousands of infringing products from the defendants’ premises. Despite the defendants being duly notified and the goods being seized in their presence, they chose not to contest the suit, leading to ex parte proceedings.
Relying on the judgments in Renaissance Hotel Holdings Inc. Vs B. Vijaya Sai & Ors. and Shaw Wallace & Co. Ltd. Vs Superior Industries Ltd, the court reiterated that where the Defendant’s mark is identical to that of the Plaintiff’s and the goods or services are identical, the court will presume confusion without requiring additional proof.
In light of the above, the Court held that the defendants’ activities were infringing Luxottica’s trademark and were likely to deceive the public. The Court, therefore, granted a permanent injunction, restraining Iswar Opticals & others. from using the infringing marks, and ordered them to deliver up all infringing goods to Luxottica for destruction and erasure.
The plaintiff had also sought punitive damages, but since such a claim was not initially pleaded in the plaint, it was not granted.
Citation: Luxottica Group S.P.A & Anr. Vs Iswar Opticals & Ors. Delhi District Court, 17th May 2024 [CS (COMM.)/60/2023] https://indiankanoon.org/doc/122834452/
Authored by Bhavishya B, Associate, BananaIP Counsels
Disclaimer
The case note/s in this blog post have been written by IP Attorneys at BananaIP Counsels based on their review and understanding of the Judgments. It may be noted that other IP attorneys and experts in the field may have different opinions about the cases or arrive at different conclusions therefrom. It is advisable to read the Judgments before making any decisions based on the case notes.
If you have any questions, or if you wish to speak with an IP expert/attorney, please reach us at: contact@bananaip.com or 91-80-26860414/24/34.
