Shakthi Fashion & Anr. v. Burberry Limited

Shakthi Fashion & Anr. v. Burberry Limited

CRP-IPD 2/2022 & CM APPL. 20304/2022

Decided on 24 May, 2022

BRIEF FACTS

The Plaintiff in this case, BURBERRY LIMITED, is a well-known luxury brand that specializes in the production, distribution, and sale of high-end garments, bags, perfumes, and other luxury items. They have filed a suit for permanent injunction against the Defendant for infringing on their trademark, violating copyright laws, and engaging in passing off by selling counterfeit goods under the brand name BURBERRY. The Defendant has been found to be selling these counterfeit goods not only through physical stores but also through online platforms like IndiaMart. However, the Defendant has filed a revision petition challenging the territorial jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court and seeking to overrule the Commercial Court's order.

CONTENTIONS OF THE PLAINTIFF

The plaintiff has filed a lawsuit accusing the defendants of selling counterfeit goods that bear the "BURBERRY" trademark. The plaintiff has alleged that the defendants have been promoting and retailing these counterfeit products through various online platforms, including IndiaMart. As a result, there is an undeniable connection between the cause of action in the present suit and the territory of New Delhi. Additionally, the plaintiff has argued that since it sells its genuine products under the "BURBERRY" trademark through its several retail stores located in New Delhi, the court, under section 20 of CPC, has the jurisdiction to hear this case. Furthermore, the plaintiff has asserted that the defendant's infringing activities are likely to have a significant impact on its current and future business in the territory of New Delhi.

CONTENTIONS OF THE DEFENDANT

The defendants argued that the Commercial Court lacks territorial jurisdiction as they have not sold their products in Delhi. They also claimed that they do not have any selling or production units in Delhi. The defendants disputed their listing on IndiaMart's website, stating that they did not provide the listing themselves and that IndiaMart's website automatically uploaded it.

COURT JUDGEMENT

The Delhi High Court relied on its previous judgement in the case of RSPL Limited vs Mukesh Sharma and Ors. It was held that in some cases, the question of jurisdiction could be a mixed question of facts and law. Merely stating that a court has territorial jurisdiction to try and adjudicate a suit would not be sufficient. The plaintiff would have to plead as a fact as to how the court would have territorial jurisdiction. However, the plaintiff would not have to give details of that material fact or the evidence by which the material fact is to be proved.

The Hon’ble High Court observed that the aforementioned principle would be applicable in this instance as well. This is because evidence would be required to prove IndiaMart’s listing, the sales, and the promotion of the defendants' goods and business in Delhi. Hence, the impugned order cannot be said to be incorrect at this time.

Accordingly, the present revision petition was dismissed.

JUDGEMENT ANALYSIS

The Delhi High Court dismissed Burberry Limited's revision petition in the case of Shakthi Fashion & Anr. vs. Burberry Limited, upholding its jurisdiction to hear the case. The plaintiff, Burberry Limited, accused the defendants of selling counterfeit goods under the "BURBERRY" trademark in New Delhi. The court rejected the defendant's contentions and highlighted the importance of establishing a factual basis for territorial jurisdiction in intellectual property disputes.