Delhi Court Dismisses Rado, Swatch Group Trademark Suit Against Local Trader

A commercial court in Saket, New Delhi, has dismissed a trademark infringement suit filed by Rado along with other Swatch Group companies, finding that they failed to establish infringement or any likelihood of confusion even on a preponderance of probabilities, in the absence of cogent evidence.

District Judge Lokesh Kumar Sharma said the case was built on unsubstantiated claims, remarking that it amounted to “nothing beyond a mere lip service done by PW1 in the air.”

Rado Uhren AG, Tissot SA, Omega SA and Longines Watch Co. had asserted statutory as well as common law rights over their trademarks, pointing to decades of global use, goodwill and reputation associated with their brands.

According to them, the dispute arose in October 2023 when a trader operating out of New Lajpat Rai Market was allegedly selling watches bearing identical marks across South Delhi without issuing invoices. They approached the court seeking a permanent injunction, along with delivery up of goods, damages and other reliefs.

The proceedings against one of the defendants, Devesh Kumar Gupta, came to an end on July 30, 2024 after he agreed to stop dealing in such goods and undertook to destroy the stock that had been seized.

The remaining defendant, however, contested the claims. He maintained that his business was limited to low-cost local brands and that he catered to a different segment of buyers. He also argued that there was no reliable proof of any recovery, pointing out that the Local Commissioner had not been examined and the report was not proved in accordance with law. No invoices, sales records or customer evidence, he said, linked him to the alleged activities.

The court found these objections persuasive. It noted that the companies' authorised representative, who appeared as the only witness, failed to disclose the source of his knowledge and had not been present during the alleged raid. His testimony on the alleged recovery of goods could not establish the plaintiffs' case.

There was also no documentary material to show that any infringing watches had actually been sold.

Even the material said to have been found during the Local Commissioner's visit did not advance the case. Although watches bearing marks such as “RADO” and “TISSOT” were reported from the premises, those items were never produced before the court or compared with the original products.

No expert was examined to demonstrate that they were counterfeit, and the witness himself did not identify them as infringing. In that situation, the court noted, the possibility that the goods were genuine could not be ruled out.

The question of consumer confusion was also addressed. The court pointed out that the companies and the trader operated in entirely different market spaces, serving distinct categories of buyers. It observed:

“I must further hold here that the class of consumers of the products of Plaintiffs is totally different from the class which buys products from market places like New Lajpat Rai Market. The price range of the products of Plaintiffs can even exceed the monthly earnings of a person, who would make a purchase from such markets, where defendant was operating his shop. Hence, the question of existence of any confusion being created there in the mind of the consumers does not even arise at all.”

The court also flagged deficiencies in the companies' authorisation process and the absence of supporting material for key factual claims.

In view of these findings, the court held that they had failed to make out a prima facie case even on a balance of probabilities.

Accordingly, the suit was dismissed with costs.