Delhi High Court: In a suit filed by the petitioner, Louis Vuitton Malletier, for seeking relief of permanent injunction, damages and other appropriate reliefs against the defendants, Mini Pushkarna, J., noted that the only issue in the present case, before the Court, was related to the photographs and images, that were used by the defendants, copyright of which, vested with the plaintiff. Thus, the Court injuncted the defendants from using the photographs, images and promotional material, of which, copyright vested with the plaintiff. Further, the Court stated that Rs. 5,00,000, should be paid by the defendants to the plaintiff, situated in France directly, because it is the prayer of the plaintiff that the costs payable by the defendants, to be paid directly to the plaintiff in France.
Background
Sometime in January 2022 and in November 2022, the plaintiff discovered that Defendants 1 and 2 were offering for sale/selling products on their website using, certain photographs and images, without authorization, copyright of which, vested with the plaintiff. Plaintiff submitted that they regularly carried out photoshoots for advertising and marketing of the plaintiff’s products and all rights in the said photographs/images so clicked, vested with the plaintiff, as these were specially commissioned/contractual works.
The plaintiff submitted that they had doubt regarding the genuineness of the products being dealt with and sold by the defendants. Further, though the defendants had already taken down the infringing photographs and images from its website, in view of the admission made by the defendants, the plaintiff was entitled to costs.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court noted that the issue, regarding the genuineness of the products dealt by the defendants, was not an issue before this Court. The only issue was related to the photographs and images, that were used by the defendants, copyright of which, vested with the plaintiff. Thus, the Court injuncted the defendants from using the photographs, images and promotional material, of which, copyright vested with the plaintiff. The Court stated that the defendants should not deal in the new products of the plaintiff, except, with written agreement/permission, from the plaintiff.
The Court stated that the defendants should continue their business of pre-owned goods of the plaintiff. However, the defendants should conspicuously display on their website that the goods sold by them, were certified pre-owned goods of the plaintiff. Further, the Court stated that Rs. 5,00,000, should be paid by the defendants to the plaintiff, situated in France directly, because it is the prayer of the plaintiff that the costs payable by the defendants, to be paid directly to the plaintiff in France.
[Louis Vuitton Malletier v. www.haute24.com, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 5817, decided on 21-08-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Plaintiff: Ashim Sood, Pooja Dodd, Rishika Aggarwal, Isha Khurana, Ekansh Gupta, Ankur Singhal, Advocates;
For the Defendants: Peeyoosh Kalra, Kartik Gandotra, Yashwant S. Baghel, Advocates.
