Court Orders Destruction of Counterfeit Tommy Hilfiger Goods

Summary

The plaintiff, Tommy Hilfiger Europe B.V., filed a suit in Delhi District Court for trademark and copyright infringement against sellers of counterfeit goods. The Court found that the defendants sold wristwatches bearing marks identical to the plaintiff’s registered trademarks, thereby causing confusion and diluting goodwill. After considering the evidence, the Court granted a permanent injunction restraining further infringement and ordered the destruction of all counterfeit products. Damages and litigation costs were also awarded to the plaintiff. This decision demonstrates the Indian court’s approach to trademark protection and counterfeit goods under the Trade Marks Act, 1999.

Facts of the Case

The plaintiff, M/s Tommy Hilfiger Europe B.V., filed a suit under Sections 134 and 135 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and Section 55 of the Copyright Act, 1957, seeking a permanent injunction against the defendants for trademark and copyright infringement, passing off, delivery up, and rendition of accounts.

The plaintiff claimed ownership of the registered trademarks TOMMY HILFIGER, TOMMY, TOMMY GIRL, and the FLAG Logo in India. These marks have been extensively used and promoted worldwide, including in India, thereby acquiring substantial goodwill and reputation.

The defendants, operating from Karol Bagh, New Delhi, were found to be selling counterfeit goods bearing marks identical to those of the plaintiff. A local commissioner appointed by the court seized 146 counterfeit wristwatches from the defendant’s premises.

Procedural History

• • The suit against Defendant No. 1, Sh. Dhan Singh Rawat Proprietor of M/s. Shri Purnagiri Collection was settled and disposed of on 06.02.2015.
  • Defendant No. 2, Madhav Raj was proceeded ex parte after failing to appear before the Court despite service of summons.

Plaintiff’s Contentions

• • The plaintiff is the registered proprietor of the marks TOMMY HILFIGER, TOMMY, TOMMY GIRL and the FLAG Logo.
  • The defendants have illegally adopted and started using identical and deceptively similar marks and copied the artistic features of the plaintiff’s trademark on goods similar to that of the plaintiff.
  • The defendants are indulged in counterfeiting the plaintiff’s products and giving a false description with respect to the source of the goods, leading to consumer confusion and dilution of the plaintiff’s goodwill.
  • Such use amounts to infringement of the plaintiff’s trademark and passing off.

Court’s Analysis

The Court observed that:

• • The plaintiff successfully proved ownership of the registered marks and their use in India.
  • The trademark used on the seized watches were identical to those of the plaintiff, creating a presumption of confusion.
  • The plaintiff sought to restrain copyright infringement of its logos, but submitted no evidence to prove its claim under the Copyright Act.
  • As to damages, while no evidence of profits earned was produced, the seizure of 146 counterfeit watches justified awarding damages for bearing the Local Commissioner’s fees to be paid by the defendants along with cost of the litigation.

Decision

The Court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff, granting:

• • A permanent injunction restraining the defendant and all associated parties from manufacturing, marketing, selling, or using the impugned marks TOMMY HILFIGER, TOMMY, TOMMY GIRL, and the Flag Logo or any deceptively similar mark.
  • An order for delivery up of all counterfeit goods and materials for destruction.
  • Damages of ₹20,000 to be paid by the defendant, along with costs of litigation.

Citation: M/s Tommy Hilfiger Europe B.V. v. Purnagiri Collection & Anr., CS No. 40/2021, Additional District Judge–01, New Delhi, Judgment dated 4^th October 2025. Available at: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/122800869/.

Reviewed by Ms. Ashwini Arun.