Cartier International B.V. v. Choosy Corner

R.C Chopra, J.:— This suit for permanent injunction on account of infringement of trade mark, passing off, rendition of accounts of profit and delivery up was filed by the plaintiff against the defendants alleging that the plaintiff is a Corporation organised and existing under the laws of Netherlands having its registered office at Amsterdam. The House of “CARTIER” was established in Paris in 1847 and with the passage of time, the name “Cartier” symbolized a life style and philosophy that was acted out with exemplary taste and a whole range of products under the name of “Cartier” were marketed by the plaintiff. Over past 150 years, “Cartier” has built up and maintained its reputation for imaginative and distinctive designs in jewellery, watches and clocks, leather-ware, pens, perfumes, lighters, scarves, cigarettes, eyewear, tableware, cutlery, porcelain, crystal and candlestands, etc. In India also since 1909, the “Cartier” products were being enjoyed by the Maharajas and Princes and in 1910, “Cartier” had established an autonomous subsidiary in Bombay called Bombay Trading Company to export gems from India and import “Cartier” products to India. The “Cartier” trade mark stands registered in the name of the plaintiff the details of which have been given in para 10 of the plaint. In addition to trade mark rights, the plaintiff enjoys copyrights also under the Copyrights Act of 1957 in respect of its logo which consists of the word “Cartier” being represented in a running and slanted font This logo has acquired widespread recognition with the plaintiff company. The trade mark and the “Cartier logo” have acquired and retained, tremendous amount of goodwill and reputation and the goods sold under the said trade mark and logo are synonymous with the finest and the most exclusive products. “Cartier” has acquired a brand image and personality not only in India but all over the world. According to the plaintiff, huge amount is spent by it upon advertisement of its trade mark and logo.

2. It is alleged that the defendants No. 1 & 2 are engaged in the business of manufacturing, distributing and selling ready-made garments. In May, 1996, the plaintiff learnt that certain people were manufacturing and selling counterfeit ready-made garments leather goods, spectacle covers etc. with falsified trade mark “Cartier” upon which they filed a criminal complaint in the Court of ACMM, New Delhi. Warrants under Section 93, Cr. P.C were issued and certain premises at Hotel Le Meridien were searched from where a huge quantity of goods bearing falsified trade mark, trade description “Cartier” were recovered. The person from whose possession these goods were recovered disclosed that these were purchased from Bombay and consequently, seizure operations were carried out at Bombay also. In spite of these searches and seizures, the defendants were continuing their activities in the matter of manufacturing, distributing and sale of garments under the trade mark “Cartier” and having “Cartier logo” so as to pass off those goods as of the plaintiff. The plaintiff alleged that the use by defendants of identical, descriptive trade mark “Cartier” and “Cartier logo” was in violation of the statutory and common law rights of the plaintiff and as such, the suit for permanently injuncting the defendants from manufacturing, selling, advertising or dealing with ready-made garments or other related goods under the trade marks Cartier, Santos De Cartier, Must De Cartier, Cartier Paris and/or Panthere De Cartier or under any other mark whether in the form of a word or label as may be identical to or deceptively similar with the plaintiff's trade marks Cartier, Santos De Cartier, Must De Cartier, Cartier Paris and/or Panthere De Cartier in any manner whatsoever. Permanent injunction against the use of “Cartier logo” was also claimed. It was also prayed that the trade mark or “Cartier logo” identical or deceptively similar may also not be used by the defendant. A decree for rendition of accounts regarding profits and a decree for delivery up by the defendants of all counterfeit garments, labels, stationary, poly bags, catalogues or brochures etc. was also claimed.

3. The defendants were proceeded against ex-parte. In its ex-parte evidence, the plaintiff filed the affidavit of Shri Debjit Gupta, the Constituted Attorney of the plaintiff Company. I have heard learned counsel for the plaintiff and gone through the records.

4. The averments as contained in the plaint, the affidavit filed on behalf of the plaintiff Company and the documents Exhibits P-1 to P-11 proved on record establish that the plaintiff Company is the owner of the trade mark “Cartier” in respect of various consumer goods which have acquired a reputation for quality not only in India but throughout the world. The work “Cartier” is common to so many trade marks being used by the plaintiff Company and even its “cartier” logo is distinctive and has acquired brand image and personality in respect of the products being manufactured by the plaintiff Company. It is proved on record that defendants are using the “Cartier” trade mark and “Cartier” logo in respect of various ready-made garments with a view to pass off their goods as those of the plaintiff Company and thereby cheat the unsuspecting buyers. The defendants are running a “Cartier” shopping centre even at Bombay which is calculated to mislead the general public by misrepresenting as if it is a shop belonging to the plaintiff Company.

5. The unrebutted evidence on record, therefore, has established that the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of perpetual injunction as prayed in the suit.

6. Accordingly, an ex-parte decree is passed in favour of the plaintiff and against both the defendants permanently restraining defendants, their agents, servants and all others acting for an on their behalf from manufacturing, selling, offering for sale, advertising, directly or indirectly dealing in ready-made garments and other related goods, with the trade mark “Cartier” or any other mark identical or deceptively similar to the plaintiff's trade mark “Cartier” and further from using the plaintiffs “Cartier logo” in any manner so as to infringe the trade mark or copyrights of the plaintiff Company.

Decree sheet be prepared.

IAs. No. 12789/1996 & 4676/1999

7. Dismissed.