Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
Can a single color ever become a trademark? This question came before the Delhi High Court in the case of Christian Louboutin SAS vs. Abubaker & Others. In this case, the plaintiff Christian Louboutin filed a suit against a shop called VERONICA and sought a permanent injunction in restraint of the ‘Red Sole’ trademark and the other benefits arising out of such use along with the damages. The Case first came before the Single Judge before whom the case came for consideration dismissed it and in that pursuit, he invoked the Order 12 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) and gave some reasons for the decision like the ‘Red Sole’ trademark being a single color trademark, it fails to qualify as a trademark under Indian law, taking in view the facts of the case the reliefs sought is a total disentitlement, there is no case of deception as the plaintiff was selling their shoes under “Christian Louboutin” that was completely different from defendants who sold theirs under the trademark “VERONICA”. Thus it was held by the Court that a single color failed to qualify as a “trademark”.
Various sections of the Trademarks Act like Sections 2(m), 2(zb), and 30(2)(a) were invoked. The plaintiff also relied on the case that was earlier decided i.e. Christian Louboutin SAS vs. Mr. Pawan Kumar & Ors. and in that case, the exclusive entitlement to the red-colored sole was given to the plaintiff.
The Division Bench of the Delhi High Court that consisted of Justice S. Murlidhar and Justice I.S. Mehta on 11th April 2019 heard the appeal of the plaintiff and held that the Single Bench could not in the very first hearing decide the case wherein there was an important presumption on the part of the plaintiff that his case was genuine and the trademark was valid. And also held that whether the plaintiff’s trademark was in real unique or not this was not to be decided by the Single Judge and it was the duty of the Court to test the validity of the plea of the plaintiff through the various pieces of evidence and pleadings. It was also held that the single judge must have given importance to the precedent which was brought forward by the plaintiff. The Division Bench thus allowed the appeal and held that the case required consideration of the Single Judge when the defendants appear before it.
Upon the case being referred back to the Single Judge, many chances were presented before the defendants but the defendants did not appear before the court and they neither filed any kind of written statement in that regard. Finally, on 13th August 2019, the Single Judge decided the case ex-parte in the absence of the defendants and the Judge decreed the lawsuit and refrained the defendant from infringing the ‘Red Sole’ trademark of the plaintiffs and granted a permanent injunction, this decision being in tune with the decision of the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court. The Court thus passed a decree for damages and costs in favor of the plaintiff for Rs. 2 Million (US$28,100) against the defendants.
86540
103860
630
114
59824