You Can’t Ever Get What You Want

From today’s Delhi High Court decision in Louis Vuitton v. Gaurav Bhatia on the issue of whether Louis Vitton is entitled to damages on a slam dunk trademark and copyright infringement action in which the Defendants were set ex parte (edits and highlights mine):

“There is no doubt that the Plaintiff is entitled for damages because the Defendants have infringed [the Plaintiff’s] trademark and copyright, and have been selling counterfeit products and have, therefore, caused losses, not only in goodwill and reputation, but also financial. However, there is no evidence on record to ascertain the actual damages suffered by the Plaintiff. Courts are not supposed to do guess work and grant damages for losses suffered by the Plaintiff. The damages have to be actual and not superfluous.

I hereby restrain the Defendants [by an order of permanent injunction]. The Defendants are also restrained from using the domain name and directed to remove the said website. The Defendants are also directed to render the accounts of profits earned by them. However, no damages are granted.”

There is entitlement to damages, there is certainty that there has been financial damage and yet, there is no evidence of actual damages, so there will be no order as to damages?

It would make sense to try and reason with this but this isn’t the first time, with this judge, with this Defendant, with this type of Plaintiff this year. (See also: Morepen). So it’s safe to say that there are two types of Delhi judges at the moment — those that will grant damages and those that will find a way not to.