In this article, we delve into the intricacies of the Calvin Klein case, ( COTY GERMANY GMBH Vs XERYUS RETAIL PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR. ) exploring the Court’s findings, and the implications of such actions on brand reputation and consumer trust.

The plaintiff’s trademark “Calvin Klein” was established and adopted in 1967, deriving its name from the founder. Since its inception, the plaintiff has extensively utilized both “Calvin Klein” and the abbreviated form “CK.”

Over the years, the plaintiff has successfully marketed a diverse range of highly popular fragrances, including notable ones like “CK one,” “CK one SHOCK,” “ETERNITY,” and “Euphoria.”

The plaintiff asserts that the distinctive and stylized presentation of the terms “CK” and “Calvin Klein” represents original artistic creations under the purview of the Indian Copyright Act.

The plaintiff’s grievance pertains to the defendants’ alleged unauthorized use of the plaintiff’s trademark on their websites, namely and Additionally, the defendants are accused of selling testers of the plaintiff’s products for commercial purposes. These testers are typically intended to allow potential customers to sample the fragrance before making a purchase decision. The plaintiff asserts that such actions infringe upon their legal rights and also constitute an unfair trade practice.

The plaintiff contends that the act of the defendants selling testers of the plaintiff’s products for commercial gain constitutes an unfair trade practice. Testers of the plaintiff are intended solely for promotional purposes and should not be offered for sale. The defendants’ practice of disguising these testers as genuine perfumes from the plaintiff is perceived as deceptive, as it misleads customers into purchasing these items under the false impression that they are authentic commercial products. This conduct is alleged to be misleading and detrimental to the plaintiff’s brand reputation and consumer trust.

Complicating matters, the defendants have chosen not to appear before the Court, leading to the acceptance of all assertions and allegations made by the plaintiff. As a result, the Court found the defendants liable for trademark infringement, having attempted to pass off their products and the plaintiff’s testers as authentic goods from the plaintiff, thus deceiving the purchasing public.

Based on the available evidence, the Court has established that the defendants’ actions constitute trademark infringement. The defendants have unlawfully attempted to pass off their own products and the plaintiff’s testers as authentic goods from the plaintiff for commercial gain, thereby misleading and defrauding the purchasing public.

As a consequence, the Court has ruled in favor of the plaintiff, ordering the defendants to refrain from such infringing activities. Additionally, the defendants have been directed to pay Rs. 1 lac towards the plaintiff’s costs associated with the legal proceedings.

The Court’s ruling in favor of the plaintiff and its directive for the defendants to cease such infringing activities and pay for legal costs sends a clear message on the importance of safeguarding intellectual property and maintaining ethical business practices in the market.