LEVI STRAUSS Vs. NIZAMA GARMENTS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Order impugned before this Court is the order dated 18.10.2011 whereby in a suit for infringement of trademark filed by the plaintiff company namely M/s Levi Strauss and Company the interim relief under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the "Code') had not been granted; the prayer made in the application under Order 26 Rule 9 of the Code seeking appointment of a Local Commissioner had also been rejected.

(2.) Record shows that the present suit has been filed by the plaintiff company seeking a mandatory and permanent injunction for passing off, infringement of trademark and copyright, unfair competition, damages and rendition of accounts. The defendant is Nizami Garments, A/7022, Ashok Gali, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi. The plaintiff is stated to be engaged in the business of manufacture and marketing of clothing of all kinds, readymade garments and clothing and leisure shoes, spectacle glasses, sunglasses, bags and other accessories under the trademark "Levi's". The plaintiff is operating his business in various parts and is a well-known branded company. The plaintiff is stated to be the registered owner of several trademarks including "Levi's" which has been registered under different classes of Trademark Act and Rules. The plaintiff company also has the exclusive rights to the labels bearing the trade mark "Levi's" and "Levi's (Housemark)", "two horse logo" and the "arcuate stitching design" logos embossed/written on its products. In the last week of September, 2011 the plaintiff has learnt that the defendant is clandestinely manufacturing and supply T-shirts, shirts, shorts, jeans and other apparels under the "Levi's" and "Levi's (Housemark)", "two horse logo" which are deceptively similar to the logos of the plaintiff company; he is blatantly infringing the registered trademark of the plaintiff. His contention is that name and logo on the products by the defendant being deceptively similar have created confusion in the minds of ordinary purchaser; ex-parte injunction as also the relief that a Local Commissioner be appointed to seize the infringing goods from the disputed premises had been prayed for. As noted supra, both these prayers had been declined by the impugned order. Along with the suit, the documents filed by the plaintiff to substantiate his case i.e. his registered trademark as also the photographs showing the impugned mark "Levi's" and "Levi's (Housemark)", "two horse logo" used on the T-shirts which are being sold by the defendant have also been placed on record. Prima-facie case has been made out by the plaintiff. In case an ex-parte injunction is not granted in his favour he will suffer an irreparable loss and injury; balance of convenience also lies in his favour. It is also imperative that a Local Commissioner be appointed ex-parte to seize the infringing goods; the impugned order is accordingly set aside.

(3.) Accordingly till the disposal of the suit, unless varied the defendant, its associates and agents, directors, officers, employees, distributors, franchisee, representatives and assigns are restrained from using the mark "Levi's" and "Levi's (Housemark)", "two horse logo".