Delhi Court Dismisses Burberry Trademark Suit Against Three Gaffar Market Traders, Grants Relief Against One

A Delhi district court has largely rejected Burberry's trademark infringement claims against traders in Karol Bagh's Gaffar Market, though it granted a permanent injunction and ₹3 lakh in damages against one trader who failed to produce allegedly infringing goods seized during a court-appointed commission.

The court held that the company failed to establish infringement against most of the traders and had instituted the suit through a person whose authority had expired before the case was filed.

District Judge Prabh Deep Kaur of Saket Courts delivered the judgment on May 29 in a suit filed by Burberry Limited against Krishan Kumar, Ashish Chanana, Md. Shible Raza, Yogesh Kumar, and Daljeet Singh.

The luxury fashion house approached the court in 2018 after a market survey allegedly revealed the sale of goods bearing marks similar to its registered trademarks. These included the BURBERRY word mark, the Equestrian Knight logo and the Check device. A John Doe order was passed on August 4, 2018. Following this, a Local Commissioner visited the traders' premises and seized goods.

The court first examined whether the suit had been instituted by a duly authorised person. Burberry had filed the suit through Nirmal Singh on the basis of a resolution-cum-authority letter dated June 7, 2017.

However, the court found that the authorisation was valid only until February 17, 2018. The suit was instituted on August 2, 2018. The court also noted that no board resolution, minutes of meetings or other documents had been produced to show that Nirmal Singh remained authorised to institute the proceedings after that date.

The court further found deficiencies in the evidence led by the company. It observed that Burberry had neither summoned the Local Commissioner to prove his report nor relied upon the report through its witness during evidence.

Examining the inventories prepared during the commission, the court noted that, except in one instance, they did not record the labels, logos or trademarks appearing on the seized goods. Referring to an inventory that described a product as a "Burberry Buckle", the court observed that this suggested that no such name, label or logo had been recorded on the remaining seized goods.

"The principal question before this Court is whether the plaintiff has been able to establish that present defendants were actually involved in the alleged infringing activities," the court said.

It added that proof of trademark registrations or reputation alone did not automatically entitle a trademark owner to relief. Infringement by the defendants had to be specifically established.

The court found that Burberry had failed to establish infringement against Krishan Kumar, Yogesh Kumar and Daljeet Singh.

In Krishan Kumar's case, the court noted that the Local Commissioner had not recorded any reason for his refusal to take custody of the seized goods. The commissioner had also not sought invoices or bills relating to the products. According to the court, these omissions raised a reasonable doubt regarding the execution of the commission.

With respect to Yogesh Kumar, the court observed that only two sunglasses and two empty wallet boxes had been seized. The report did not specify any trademark, label or logo appearing on those items.

The court also declined relief against Daljeet Singh. It noted that the Local Commissioner's report recorded the presence of Kultar Singh, son of Daljeet Singh, at the premises. The seized goods had also been released to him on superdari. The court said no explanation had been provided as to why Daljeet Singh had been impleaded as a defendant. It further noted the absence of any description of trademarks or logos on the seized goods.

Proceedings against Ashish Chanana had already been settled during the pendency of the suit.

The court, however, granted relief against Md. Shible Raza. It found that the Local Commissioner's report specifically recorded that goods recovered from his premises bore the "Burberry" label.

Raza failed to produce the seized goods despite directions from the court. An adverse inference was therefore drawn against him. The court held that it would be presumed that he was dealing in counterfeit or spurious goods.

Observing that the use of deceptively similar marks would cause loss to Burberry and prejudice consumers, the court granted a permanent injunction against Raza. It also awarded the luxury fashion house compensatory and punitive damages of ₹3 lakh.