Delhi Court Restrains 9 Traders From Selling Counterfeit Polo Ralph Lauren Goods, Awards ₹5 Lakh Damages

A Delhi district court has permanently restrained nine Gandhi Nagar traders from selling counterfeit Polo Ralph Lauren products and awarded ₹5 lakh in damages to The Polo/Lauren Company L.P.

District Judge Arul Varma of the Saket district court, in a judgment dated May 19, 2026, granted a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from manufacturing, selling, advertising, or otherwise dealing in products bearing the plaintiff's trademarks or deceptively similar marks. The court also directed that the seized counterfeit goods be handed over to the plaintiff for destruction and awarded Rs 5 lakh in damages.

The suit was instituted in 2012 after the plaintiff alleged that the defendants were manufacturing and selling counterfeit products using its registered trademarks, including the POLO and POLO player device marks, without authorisation.

According to the plaintiff, the court had granted an ad interim injunction on March 5, 2012, following which a Local Commissioner was appointed to inspect the defendants' premises.

The Local Commissioner visited the premises on April 18, 2012, and seized five counterfeit goods from Lal Enterprises and 13 counterfeit goods from Calcutta Label Textile. The commissioner was, however, obstructed from inspecting the premises of Buti Button, Paras Label, Saurabh Label, Sanjay Labels, and Rajesh.

The order records that Buti Button, Paras Label, Saurabh Label, and Sanjay Labels later settled the dispute before the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre in 2014, while Lal Enterprises, Amit Labels, Calcutta Label Textile, Ashish Labels, and Rajesh were proceeded against ex parte in 2015.

The defendants had contested the suit primarily on the ground that the Saket court lacked territorial jurisdiction. Rejecting that objection, the court held that the plaintiff had shown it carried on business in South Delhi through authorised distributors, giving the court jurisdiction under the Trade Marks Act.

On infringement, the court found that the plaintiff had established its proprietary rights over the trademarks through registration documents and evidence on record.

The court said there was “irrefutable evidence” showing that counterfeit goods bearing the plaintiff's marks had been recovered from the defendants' possession.

It noted that photographs placed on record by the Local Commissioner showed the defendants had used marks almost identical to the plaintiff's registered “RALPH LAUREN” mark on identical goods.

“A close scrutiny thereof, specifically the defendants choice of typography for these marks, coupled with adoption of a trade dress identical to that of the plaintiff's products, leads to an inference of the goods of the defendants being counterfeit. The similarity is pronounced,” the court said.

Holding that the defendants had deliberately attempted to exploit the plaintiff's brand reputation, the court observed, “There is irrefragable evidence on record to demonstrate that the Defendants have taken advantage of the Plaintiff's ingenuity, and have infringed the trade mark of the Plaintiff with impunity, and have nonchalantly sold off their counterfeit goods in the market to credulous buyers. Such knavery cannot be brooked.”

The court also noted the plaintiff's reliance on an earlier Delhi High Court ruling in The Polo/Lauren Company L.P. v. Rohit S. Bajaj, which had recognised the POLO/player device as a well-known trademark entitled to maximum protection.

On damages, the court held that the defendants had continued their infringing conduct despite an injunction already operating against them.

“For the damage to the reputation contained in trade mark/service mark of the plaintiff, and misuse thereof for a considerable number of years coupled with the fact that the defendant continued unabted and unabashedly with their misconduct of infringement, despite an injunction passed by this Court restraining them to do so, the defendant is liable to recompense the plaintiff, and therefore the plaintiff is entitled to seek damages from the defendant to the tune of Rs 5,00,000/- as claimed,” the court held.