Lacoste Sa And Another v. Kandhan Traders And 3 Others

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 18.08.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY and O.A.Nos.748 to 753 of 2025 and A.Nos.3526 & 3527 of 2025 1.LACOSTE S.A 8, rue de Castiglione - 75001, Paris, France.

Having store at:

Shop No.S-051 & 52, Ground Floor, Express Avenue Mall, No.49 - 50 L, Whites Road, Royapettah, Chennai, Tamil Nadu - 600 014 Represented by its Constituted Attorney Mr.Anand Arya 2.GANT AB PO Box 27021, 102 51, Stockholm, Sweden, Having Store at:

35JW and 8QJ, VR Mall, Thirumangalam, Chennai, Tamil Nadu 600 040 Represented by its Constituted Attorney Mr.Anand Arya ... Plaintiffs -vs1/9

1.KANDHAN TRADERS 37, Bridgeway Colony Extension, Lakshmi Nagar Main Road, Tiruppur - 641 607, Tamil Nadu.

2.SHANTEX #43, Iyappan 2nd Street, Kumarnathapuram South, Tiruppur - 641 602, Tamil Nadu.

... Defendants PRAYER: Civil Suit (Commercial Division) filed under Order VII Rule 1 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 And Order IV Rule 1 of O.S.Rules, 1956 Read With Section 7 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 Read With Sections 27, 28, 29, 134 & 135 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 And Sections 51 & 55 of the Copyrights Act, 1957, praying to grant a judgment and decree on the following terms:- (a) Permanent injunction restraining the Defendants, themselves, their directors / partners / proprietors as the case may be, heirs, legal representatives, successors-in-business, assigns, servants, agents, distributors, stockists, wholesalers, retailers, transporters, representatives, or them, from infringing the 1st Plaintiff's registered trademarks "LACOSTE", 2/9

and Logo contained in Trademark Nos 400265, 610604, 3532017 by manufacturing, marketing, packaging, distributing, selling, offering for sale, advertising, or dealing in any manner whatsoever in goods bearing the 1st Plaintiff's registered trademarks or using any package, wrapper, container, label, colour scheme, get-up, layout, or trade dress that is identical or deceptively similar to that of the 1st Plaintiff; (b) Permanent injunction restraining the Defendants themselves, their directors / partners / proprietors as the case may be, heirs, legal representatives, successors-in-business, assigns, servants, agents, distributors, stockists, wholesalers, retailers, transporters, representatives, or them, from directly or indirectly, passing off or enabling others to pass off their products as and for those of the 1st Plaintiff by using the mark LACOSTE, the crocodile device/logo, or any other mark, logo, name, label, packaging, colour scheme, website, or trade description identical with or deceptively similar to the 1st Plaintiff's marks, thereby misrepresenting origin, sponsorship, or affiliation in any other manner whatsoever; (c) Permanent injunction restraining the Defendants themselves, their 3/9

directors / partners / proprietors as the case may be, heirs, legal representatives, successors-in-business, assigns, servants, agents, distributors, stockists, wholesalers, retailers, transporters, representatives, or them, from in any manner infringing the 1st Plaintiff's copyright in the artistic works LACOSTE, the crocodile device/logo, or any logo by use of a similar logo bearing the artistic works LACOSTE, which is an imitation of the 1st Plaintiff and rsquo;s said artistic works or in any other manner whatsoever;

(d) Permanent injunction restraining the Defendants, themselves, their directors / partners / proprietors as the case may be, heirs, legal representatives, successors-in-business, assigns, servants, agents, distributors, stockists, wholesalers, retailers, transporters, representatives, or them, from infringing the 2nd Plaintiff's registered trademarks GANT, and Logo contained in Trademark Nos. 1262214, 2272933 by manufacturing, marketing, packaging, distributing, selling, offering for sale, advertising, or dealing in any manner whatsoever in goods bearing the 2nd Plaintiff's 4/9

registered trademarks or using any package, wrapper, container, label, colour scheme, get-up, layout, or trade dress that is identical or deceptively similar to that of the 2nd Plaintiff;

(e) Permanent injunction restraining the Defendants themselves, their directors / partners / proprietors as the case may be, heirs, legal representatives, successors-in-business, assigns, servants, agents, distributors, stockists, wholesalers, retailers, transporters, representatives, or them, from directly or indirectly, passing off or enabling others to pass off their products as and for those of the 2nd Plaintiff by using the mark GANT and or any other mark, logo, name, label, packaging, colour scheme, website, or trade description identical with or deceptively similar to the 2nd Plaintiff's marks, thereby misrepresenting origin, sponsorship, or affiliation in any other manner whatsoever;

(f) Permanent injunction restraining the Defendants themselves, their directors / partners / proprietors as the case may be, heirs, legal representatives, successors-in-business, assigns, servants, agents, distributors, stockists, wholesalers, retailers, transporters, representatives, or 5/9

them, from in any manner infringing the 2nd Plaintiff's copyright in the artistic works GANT, or any label by use of a similar label bearing the artistic work GANT, which is an imitation of the 2nd Plaintiff's said artistic works or in any other manner whatsoever;

(g) A preliminary decree in favour of the Plaintiffs directing the Defendants by himself, his partners / proprietors, heirs, legal representatives, successors in business, assigns, servants, agents, distributors, and all persons claiming under or through it to deliver up to the Plaintiff for destruction all infringing material bearing the Plaintiff's trademark / label or any other word / mark which may be identical with or deceptively similar to the Plaintiffs' registered trade mark / label / trade name including its dyes, blocks, moulds, machines, labels, packaging, and all such material that bear or incorporate the impugned marks/trade names/labels similar to that of the Plaintiff's registered mark/label for the purposes of destruction and erasure; (h) For an order for rendition of accounts of profits earned by the 6/9

Defendants by their impugned illegal trade activities and a decree for the amount so found in favor of the Plaintiffs on such rendition of accounts. (i) In the alternative, for the decree of grant of damages, the Defendants be ordered to pay to the Plaintiff, a sum of in the tune of Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakh only).

(j) For an order for entire cost of proceedings. For Plaintiff : Ms.Shivani Nadesan for Mr.Arun C.Mohan **********

JUDGMENT

Learned counsel for the plaintiffs submits that she has been instructed to withdraw the suit. An endorsement has been made for the said purpose.

2. Therefore, C.S.(Comm.Div.) No.186 of 2025 is dismissed as withdrawn without any order as to costs. Consequently, the connected 7/9

applications are closed.

18.08.2025 rna Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY,J rna 8/9

and O.A.Nos.748 to 753 of 2025 and A.Nos.3526 & 3527 of 2025 18.08.2025 9/9