A single judge bench of Justice C Hari Shankar observed that ramifications of counterfeiting “extend far beyond the confines of the small shop of the petty counterfeiter”.  The present application before the HC alleged that a shop owner, Javed Ansari, continued to sell LV-branded belts till September 2022, violating the HC's order. The Delhi High Court Monday directed the owner of a Delhi-based shop selling belts to pay Rs 5 lakh as damages to Louis Vuitton, after the court observed that he chose to continue selling counterfeit goods in violation of a previous order of the HC which had restrained him from doing so. A single judge bench of Justice C Hari Shankar observed that ramifications of counterfeiting “extend far beyond the confines of the small shop of the petty counterfeiter”. “It is a commercial evil, which erodes brand value, amounts to duplicity with the trusting consumer, and, in the long run, has serious repercussions on the fabric of the national economy. A counterfeiter abandons, completely, any right to equitable consideration by a court functioning within confines of the rule of law. He is entitled to no sympathy, as he practises, knowingly and with complete impunity, falsehood and deception… the court is required to be economically and socially sensitised, and to send a deterrent message to others who indulge, or propose to indulge, in practice of counterfeiting,” the HC observed. The court observed that the store owner chose to continue with his business of selling counterfeit LV-branded goods, even after being restrained from doing so by HC in its order of September 2021 which “augmented his culpability”. The HC was hearing an application moved by Louis Vuitton, in its already pending trademark infringement suit against several small entities. On September 23, 2021, HC passed an interim order restraining these entities from importing, manufacturing, selling or offering for sale or otherwise dealing with registered trademarks ‘Louis Vuitton’ or the logo ‘LV’, and associated monograms and patterns infringing the company’s trademark. The present application before the HC alleged that a shop owner, Javed Ansari, continued to sell LV-branded belts till September 2022, violating the HC’s order. Ansari’s counsel, advocate Birender Bhatt acknowledged that his client was selling the belts after the order was passed, however, arguing that his client is “paltry businessman” who runs his establishment in a small rented shop. The shop owner apologised for the breach of the interim restraining order and asked court to take a lenient view. LV’s counsel, advocate Pravin Anand, submitted that counterfeiting has become a rampant social evil and if the court does not come down heavily on such counterfeiters, brand value acquired over years would stand progressively eroded. Anand said any leniency would encourage such counterfeiters to make imitation goods, thereby diluting the brand value of well-known brands and duping customers. The HC held, “… Interests of justice would best be subserved if… defendant is directed to pay, to the plaintiff, Rs 5 lakh within four weeks… failing which Ansari… shall suffer incarceration in civil prison in Tihar Jail for one week”. LV’s counsel, advocate Pravin Anand, submitted that counterfeiting has become a rampant social evil and if court does not come down heavily on counterfeiters, brand value acquired over years would stand progressively eroded. LV had also argued that in determining Ansari’s degree of culpability, the HC must also take into account the fact that he imitates other brands as well. On this, the HC held, “The court cannot, therefore, while exercising jurisdiction… return a finding that the defendant is also guilty of counterfeiting other brands. No such presumption can, in law, be drawn. For all one knows, the other brands in which the defendant is dealing may be genuine”. The court said that compliance with its order has to be strictly in terms of the order and cannot go beyond it.