Isabella Mariam

The Delhi High Court, presided Single Bench of  Justice Mini Pushkarna issued a permanent injunction in a trademark infringement suit involving TM 25 Holding BV, the proprietor of the "G-STAR" brand. The court stated in favor of the plaintiff, restraining the defendants from manufacturing and distributing counterfeit goods bearing the "G-STAR" trademarks. Furthermore, the court imposed financial penalties on several defendants for their role in trademark infringement.

TM 25 Holding BV, a Netherlands-based company, is engaged in the business of designing and marketing fashion apparel under the "G-STAR" brand. The plaintiff alleged that its registered trademarks, including "G-STAR," "G-STAR RAW," "RAW," "G-RAW," and "RAW Denim 3301," were being infringed upon by the defendants through unauthorized manufacturing and distribution of counterfeit products.

Also Read: SC Holds Registry Accountable for Unexplained Deletion of Cases

The plaintiff contended that during a market survey conducted between September and November 2023, it discovered that various entities, including the defendants, were engaged in counterfeiting activities. Defendant No. 1, Akhtar Ali, was identified as a manufacturer of counterfeit garments, while Defendants No. 2 to 5 were found to be involved in their distribution. Defendant No. 6, Vanshika Traders, was later impleaded in place of an unidentified party.

The plaintiff submitted that the trademarks in question were uniquely associated with its brand and had been in continuous use since 1996. It further asserted its statutory rights over these marks in multiple international jurisdictions, including the European Union, the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, China, and Japan. The trademarks have been prominently featured in international advertising campaigns and have acquired distinctiveness and goodwill globally.

During the investigation, the plaintiff gathered substantial evidence, including photographic documentation of the infringing goods, statements from vendors, and online listings that falsely associated the counterfeit products with the G-STAR brand. This evidence was submitted before the court to establish the scale of the infringing activities.

A court-appointed Local Commissioner executed raids at the premises of Defendants No. 1 to 6, leading to the seizure of large quantities of counterfeit products. The reports from the Local Commissioners detailed the findings, including thousands of labels, hundreds of counterfeit garments, and manufacturing equipment at Defendant No. 1’s premises. The Local Commissioners also documented inventory lists, recorded statements from store owners and employees, and obtained video footage of the seized goods.

The plaintiff argued that the unauthorized use of its trademarks caused severe reputational damage and financial loss, as consumers were misled into purchasing counterfeit products believing them to be genuine. It was also submitted that the presence of counterfeit products in the market diluted the distinctiveness of the plaintiff’s trademarks and adversely affected the brand’s goodwill.

Justice Mini Pushkarna noted that the defendants had failed to file written statements within the statutory period and had been proceeded against ex parte. The court observed that the plaintiff's trademarks were well-established and that the defendants had wilfully infringed upon them.

The court referred to the reports of the Local Commissioners, which confirmed the existence of counterfeit products bearing the plaintiff's trademarks at multiple locations. The court recorded:

"The reports of the Local Commissioners clearly bring forth the infringing activities of the defendants."

The court further noted that Defendant No. 1 was found in possession of substantial quantities of counterfeit goods, including 156 pieces of infringing cargo pants and 2001 infringing labels. The inspection at Defendant No. 1’s premises also revealed 37 sewing machines, indicating a large-scale operation. Defendant No. 2 was found in possession of 102 counterfeit jeans, while Defendant No. 4 had 29 infringing products. Defendant No. 6 was found in possession of 154 counterfeit items, including jeans labelled with the plaintiff’s registered trademarks.

Regarding Defendant No. 2, the court took into account his admission that he had ceased using the "G-STAR" and "G-STAR RAW" marks upon becoming aware of the plaintiff’s rights. However, the court noted that this admission did not absolve him of liability for prior acts of infringement.

On the issue of damages, the court stated:

"The defendants have no plausible justification for adopting the plaintiff’s trademarks, other than to ride upon the plaintiff’s established reputation and goodwill."

The court also observed that the large quantities of infringing goods recovered demonstrated the extent of the unauthorized use of the plaintiff’s trademarks and the commercial harm caused. The court underscored that trademark infringement not only causes financial loss to the rightful proprietor but also misleads consumers into purchasing counterfeit goods, which may be of substandard quality.

The court noted:

"Trademark protection is essential to preserving the exclusivity and reputation of a brand. Any unauthorized use of a registered mark amounts to unfair competition and deceives consumers into believing they are purchasing authentic goods."

Given the evidence on record and the failure of the defendants to present any defense, the court found the case in favor of the plaintiff.

The Delhi High Court issued a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from manufacturing, selling, or distributing any goods bearing the "G-STAR" trademarks or any similar mark.

Also Read: Calcutta High Court Upholds Tribunal’s Decision: ‘No Delay’ in Employment for Widow of Deceased Worker, Orders Compensation Until Appointment

The court also awarded damages and costs against the defendants as follows:

• Defendant No. 1: ₹4,00,000/-

• Defendant No. 2: ₹1,00,000/-

• Defendant No. 3: ₹10,000/-

• Defendant No. 4: ₹10,000/-

• Defendant No. 5: Nil

• Defendant No. 6: ₹2,00,000/-

The court further directed that the infringing tags and labels, which were taken on superdari by the Local Commissioners and returned to the respective defendants, must be destroyed under the supervision of the plaintiff’s representative. The products where it was not possible to remove the infringing marks were ordered to be handed over to the plaintiff for disposal through charitable means.

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Plaintiff: Mr. Pravin Anand, Mr. Saif Khan, Mr. Shobhit Agarwal, and Mr. Prajjwal Kushwaha, Advocates

For Defendant No. 1: Mr. Nitin Mehta and Mr. Arpit Rawat, Advocates

Case Title: TM 25 Holding BV v. Akhtar Ali & Ors.

Neutral Citation: 2025: DHC:1671

Case Number: CS(COMM) 904/2023

Bench: Justice Mini Pushkarna, Single Bench

[Read/Download order]