Delhi High Court: In a suit filed by Loreal SA (plaintiff) seeking permanent injunction restraining the defendant 1 from infringement of registered trademark and copyright of the plaintiff and other conjuncted reliefs of passing off, delivery up, damages, rendition of accounts, etc., Mini Pushkarna, J., granted injunction in favour of the plaintiff and held that the plaintiff is entitled to a nominal cost of ₹1,00,000, which shall be paid to the plaintiff by the defendant no. 1, within a period of eight weeks.
L’Oréal SA, a global cosmetics giant, filed the present suit against defendants, alleging trademark infringement, passing off, and counterfeiting of its registered trademarks. The plaintiff contended that its brand names, including ‘L’Oréal,’ ‘Maybelline,’ and ‘Garnier,’ are globally renowned and enjoy immense goodwill and reputation. The company maintained that it had secured valid trademark registrations for these brands in multiple jurisdictions, including India. It was alleged that the defendants were engaged in the unauthorized manufacture, distribution, and sale of counterfeit products bearing L’Oréal’s trademarks, thereby misleading consumers and tarnishing the brand’s reputation.
The plaintiff claimed that these counterfeit products were of substandard quality and posed a serious risk to consumer safety. It was contended that such infringing activities not only deceived the public but also resulted in substantial economic loss to L’Oréal. The suit was initiated upon receiving reports of counterfeit goods circulating in the market, prompting an investigation that led to the identification of the defendants as primary offenders.
The plaintiff argued that it was a well-established brand with significant market share and consumer trust. It was contended that the defendants’ actions violated the Trademarks Act, 1999, and constituted both civil and criminal wrongs. The plaintiff submitted evidence, including market surveys and forensic reports, to establish the presence of counterfeit goods in the market. It further argued that allowing such infringement to persist would not only harm its brand reputation but also endanger consumers.
On the other hand, the defendants denied the allegations and contended that they were not involved in any counterfeiting activities. Some defendants claimed that they were merely distributors and had no role in the manufacturing of the allegedly infringing goods. Others argued that their business dealings were legitimate and that the plaintiff’s claims were exaggerated. Certain defendants also challenged the validity of the plaintiff’s trademarks and asserted that they had independent rights to trade in similar goods.
The Court examined the evidence presented by both parties and took note of the extensive documentation provided by the plaintiff, including trademark registration certificates, market surveys, and forensic reports confirming the presence of counterfeit products. The Court emphasized that trademark protection is essential to prevent consumer deception and to uphold brand integrity. It noted that under Sections 29 and 30 of the Trademarks Act, 1999, the unauthorized use of a registered trademark amounts to infringement, and the burden lay on the defendants to disprove the allegations.
The Court also considered the impact of counterfeiting on public health and consumer safety and observed that the cosmetics industry involves products that come into direct contact with consumers’ skin and hair, making it imperative to ensure authenticity and quality control. The presence of counterfeit goods in the market not only misleads consumers but also exposes them to potential health hazards. Regarding the defendants’ arguments, the Court found that mere denial of liability was insufficient considering the plaintiff’s evidence. It held that the defense of being a mere distributor did not absolve the defendants from liability if they were found to be dealing in counterfeit goods. The Court further rejected the challenge to the validity of L’Oréal’s trademarks, affirming that they were duly registered and entitled to protection under the law.
After considering the submissions and evidence, the Court ruled in favor of L’Oréal SA and granted a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from manufacturing, selling, or distributing counterfeit products bearing the plaintiff’s trademarks. The Court also directed the appointment of local commissioners to conduct search-and-seizure operations at the defendants’ premises to seize the infringing goods.
Additionally, the Court awarded damages in favor of the plaintiff, recognizing the economic loss and reputational harm suffered due to counterfeiting.
[Loreal SA v. Ashok Kumar, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 2005, decided on 04-03-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Mr. Rishabh Gupta, Advocate for plaintiff
Mr. Rishabh Dev Mishra, Adv. for D3 (Through VC) Mr. Rajesh Gogna, CGSC with Mr. Mohd. Bilal, Ms. Priya Singh, Mr. Nishant Sharma and Ms. Archana Roy, Advs. for D-4.
