Log in or register
Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 20 MAY 2011

Counterfeiting Louis Vuitton ? – The Delhi High Court Decides.

Lex Orbis
Explore more from Lex Orbis

The Delhi High Court in the case of Louis Vuitton Malletier v. Atul Jaggi & Anr., awarded permanent injunction in favour of Louis Vuitton (Plaintiff) thereby restraining Atul Jaggi (the Defendants) from selling any product bearing the "LOUIS VUITTON" mark or any other mark deceptively or confusingly similar to it.

IndiaIntellectual Property
Sonam Lhamu Bhutia
Sonam Lhamu Bhutia
Author LinkedIn connections

The Delhi High Court in the case of Louis Vuitton Malletier v. Atul Jaggi & Anr., awarded permanent injunction in favour of Louis Vuitton (Plaintiff) thereby restraining Atul Jaggi (the Defendants) from selling any product bearing the "LOUIS VUITTON" mark or any other mark deceptively or confusingly similar to it. Louis Vuitton also claimed an order for delivery up of all finished and unfinished materials and accessories, packaging, labels, dies, blocks and other material bearing any of the Louis Vuitton trademarks or bearing any other mark(s)/logo/device similar thereto for the purpose of erasure/destruction.

The plaintiff is the proprietor of the registered trademark "LOUIS VUITTON" in respect of accessories and variety of leather goods. The mark "LOUIS VUITTON" was coined and has been in use since 1890 and as such, the mark is distinctive and has acquired a worldwide reputation. It was alleged by the Plaintiff that the proprietors of one "Purse Collection" and "M

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

Register for freeORLog in

Related Articles

Legal Intelligence Newsletters: sign up for the latest legal and regulatory news on your chosen topics

Read more about

Related Comparative Guides

See more popular content from

Article

Copy, Right? ANI Media Pvt. Ltd. v. Open AI OpCo LLC

When an artificial intelligence system is trained on copyrighted news content, and later answers a user’s question using what it learned, has the law been broken? On 24th July 2026, the Delhi High Court answered that question, at least for now. In ANI Media Pvt. Ltd. v. Open AI OpCo LLC, Justice Amit Bansal declined to grant an interim injunction against OpenAI, holding, on a prima facie, interim stage view, that the company’s use of ANI’s news content to train its large language models (“LLMs”) falls within the fair dealing exception under Section 52(1)(a) of the Copyright Act, 1957
IndiaIntellectual Property
S.S. Rana & Co.
S.S. Rana & Co.
Article

AI Training Data, Copyright Risk And Commercial Liability: What Businesses Need To Know

On 8 October 2026, USA Today Co. and its affiliated newspaper companies, which publish 19 titles including USA Today, the Detroit Free Press and The Arizona Republic, sued seven OpenAI entities in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York. The complaint alleges that OpenAI copied their journalism to train its models, stripped identifying information from it, and now uses those models to give ChatGPT users summaries that substitute for the original reporting. The publishers seek more than USD 250 million in damages, an injunction and an order for the destruction of models and training sets containing their content.
IndiaIntellectual Property
Legitpro Law
Legitpro Law