OLD NAVY ITM INC Vs. DEEPA SUREKHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiffs in the three suits have filed similar claims alleging infringement and passing off in respect of registered trademarks GAP, Old navy and Banana Republic in respect of apparels. Further, it is the case of the plaintiffs that the defendants have also adopted the trading style of gapl, which incorporates in its entirety the registered trademark GAP.

(2.) THE plaintiffs claim their rights in these trademarks and vast sales running into billions of dollars all over the world. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the defendants are causing parallel importation of the goods under the said three trademarks, which were manufactured several seasons ago by or on behalf of the plaintiffs, but are no longer in use and were intended for sale in a specific country.

(3.) THE plaintiffs claim that they have an elaborate system in place which controls and regulates further dealings in their discontinued/discarded/out of fashion products by providing that these be taken off the main and primary channel of distribution and sales and dispose off through secondary channels strictly in accordance with the laid out procedure and regulatory mechanism. One such regulatory directive in force is stated to be the requirement that the original labels stitched to the apparels be removed before they are disposed off through the secondary channels of distribution. The plaintiffs allege that the defendants are importing/distributing and marketing the discontinued apparels of the plaintiffs from sources not authorized by the plaintiffs and stitching to these apparels labels/price tickets of their own manufacture being the plaintiffs' registered trademarks. A representation is, thus, made to the public of these products bearing all the three trademarks being of the plaintiffs though they are not part of the current inventory of the plaintiffs products resulting in untrue and misleading representation to the public at large, thus, constituting a false trade description.