{"id":145740,"date":"2025-10-16T10:12:13","date_gmt":"2025-10-16T04:42:13","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/?p=145740"},"modified":"2025-10-16T10:12:13","modified_gmt":"2025-10-16T04:42:13","slug":"tommy-hilfiger-counterfeit-goods-court-order-india","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/tommy-hilfiger-counterfeit-goods-court-order-india\/","title":{"rendered":"Court Orders Destruction of Counterfeit Tommy Hilfiger Goods"},"content":{"rendered":"<h5>Facts of the Case<\/h5>\n<p>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.<\/p>\n<p>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.<\/p>\n<p>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\u2019s premises.<\/p>\n<h5>Procedural History<\/h5>\n<ul>\n<li style=\"list-style-type: none;\">\n<ul>\n<li>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.<\/li>\n<li>Defendant No. 2, Madhav Raj was proceeded ex parte after failing to appear before the Court despite service of summons.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h5>Plaintiff\u2019s Contentions<\/h5>\n<ul>\n<li style=\"list-style-type: none;\">\n<ul>\n<li>The plaintiff is the registered proprietor of the marks TOMMY HILFIGER, TOMMY, TOMMY GIRL and the FLAG Logo.<\/li>\n<li>The defendants have illegally adopted and started using identical and deceptively similar marks and copied the artistic features of the plaintiff\u2019s trademark on goods similar to that of the plaintiff.<\/li>\n<li>The defendants are indulged in counterfeiting the plaintiff\u2019s products and giving a false description with respect to the source of the goods, leading to consumer confusion and dilution of the plaintiff\u2019s goodwill.<\/li>\n<li>Such use amounts to infringement of the plaintiff\u2019s trademark and passing off.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h5>Court\u2019s Analysis<\/h5>\n<p>The Court observed that:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li style=\"list-style-type: none;\">\n<ul>\n<li>The plaintiff successfully proved ownership of the registered marks and their use in India.<\/li>\n<li>The trademark used on the seized watches were identical to those of the plaintiff, creating a presumption of confusion.<\/li>\n<li>The plaintiff sought to restrain copyright infringement of its logos, but submitted no evidence to prove its claim under the Copyright Act.<\/li>\n<li>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\u2019s fees to be paid by the defendants along with cost of the litigation.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h5>Decision<\/h5>\n<p>The Court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff, granting:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li style=\"list-style-type: none;\">\n<ul>\n<li>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.<\/li>\n<li>An order for delivery up of all counterfeit goods and materials for destruction.<\/li>\n<li>Damages of \u20b920,000 to be paid by the defendant, along with costs of litigation.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p><strong>Citation<\/strong>: M\/s Tommy Hilfiger Europe B.V. v. Purnagiri Collection &amp; Anr., CS No. 40\/2021, Additional District Judge\u201301, New Delhi, Judgment dated 4<sup>th<\/sup> October 2025. Available at: <a title=\"Ms Tommy Hilfiger Europe B.V vs Purnagiri Collection on 4 October, 2025\" href=\"https:\/\/indiankanoon.org\/doc\/122800869\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">https:\/\/indiankanoon.org\/doc\/122800869\/<\/a>.<\/p>\n<p>Reviewed by Ms. Ashwini Arun.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>The Delhi court granted a permanent injunction against the sale of counterfeit Tommy Hilfiger goods, ordering destruction of seized products. The decision highlights the application of trademark law in protecting brand owners from infringement and counterfeit activities in India.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":9,"featured_media":145741,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"iawp_total_views":84,"footnotes":""},"categories":[6,5495,3,11],"tags":[31,1679,6811,5,6225,679,12339,41],"class_list":["post-145740","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-intellectual-property","category-case-reviews","category-copyrights","category-trademarks","tag-copyright-infringement","tag-counterfeit-goods","tag-indian-courts","tag-intellectual-property","tag-legal-case","tag-permanent-injunction","tag-tommy-hilfiger","tag-trademark-infringement-2"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/145740","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/9"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=145740"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/145740\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":145743,"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/145740\/revisions\/145743"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/145741"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=145740"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=145740"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=145740"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}