Vogue Obtains Relief Against Textile Company
19 November 2012
The Delhi High Court recently passed an ex-parte interim injunction against textile company Arvind Limited, restraining it from using the “Vogue” mark in conjunction with its “Excalibur” mark. The defendants, who control a large share of the Indian textile market and are one of the country’s largest retail chains, market brands including Excalibur, New Port University, Flying Machine, Ruf & Tuf, USPA, Sansa-Belt, Izod, Pier Cardin Paris, Arrow and Cherokee. Arvind Mills also retails global brands including Tommy Hilfiger, Lee, Nautica and Wrangler in joint ventures with popular and well-known garment retail houses.
The Excalibur range of products consists of shirts and other ready made garments and are hugely popular with the Indian public. A new line of clothing by Arvind Limited incorporated the word Vogue in exactly the same manner as styled by the magazine. Lawyers for the plaintiffs, Lall Lahiri & Salhotra, led by partner Rahul Chaudhry, alleged that the use of the word Vogue by the defendant amounted to infringement in its most blatant form and was likely to create an impression that the clothes were in some manner endorsed by the fashion magazine. The court also agreed that the use of the Vogue mark in relation to the mass marketed brand Excalibur had the potential to tarnish the reputation so painstakingly accumulated by the plaintiffs and thereby cause losses.
The court took notice of the fact that the Vogue mark has been in use worldwide for almost 120 years and has garnered reputation and goodwill that is second to none in its field. Despite the apparent dissimilarity between the products of the two parties, the court found it expedient to restrain the defendants from using the Vogue mark. The order, passed ex-parte, effectively puts an end to the use of the word Vogue by Arvind Limited in its clothing line.
“The order is only interim and a long battle still remains to be fought before the High Court of Delhi, which has been called upon to decide the contentious issue of trademark use,” says Chaudhry. “However, in light of [the] order, it appears unlikely that Arvind Mills shall be able to continue use of this mark.”
