Campus Activewear Limited (Campus) filed two suits in the Delhi High Court against Asian Footwears Private Limited (Asian). Campus also made Amazon Seller Services Private Limited and M/s Flipkart Internet Private Limited which are e-commerce platforms party to the suits.
Campus claimed that Asian had imitated multiple of its shoe/footwear designs in different color combinations, images of some of them are reproduced hereunder.
Source- Judgment
In the second suit, Campus claimed that seven of its registered footwear designs were copied by Asian in different colour combinations images of some of them are reproduced hereunder. In total there were 21 such designs in number.
Source- Judgment
The parties were referred to mediation before Justice Manmohan Singh (Retired), Judge, Delhi High Court.
Asian agreed to altogether give up 16 footwear designs of the 21 impugned designs. Insofar as the remaining five designs were concerned, Asian made changes to those designs which were approved by Campus.
Asian had approximately 98,000 pieces of finished and unfinished stock footwear bearing the 21 impugned designs ready for sale and Campus had no objection if the same were allowed to be exhausted by Asian till September 30th, 2022.
In addition, as a gesture of goodwill and in view of the costs incurred by Campus, Asian agreed to pay damages of INR 50,00,000/-.
Both e-commerce platforms were directed to ensure that after 30th September, 2022 none of Asian’s impugned designs were available for sale on their platforms. In case, of any listings of the said products on the said ecommerce platforms after 30th September, 2022, Campus was granted rights to provide the URLs to the said platform, which shall than delist the listings expeditiously and, in any case, within 5 working days.
Insofar as the changed designs which have been approved by Campus, the Court stated that Asian is free to sell the same both through its usual distribution network and on e-commerce platforms. The Court decreed the suits on the above terms.
Another example in 2018 was the matter which seemed to signal the beginning of a messy, drawn out legal affair in the fashion world, designer Vaishali Shadagule alleged that Sanjay Garg of Raw Mango had copied her designs and accordingly accused him of plagiarism. In return, Garg filed a suit of defamation against Shadagule in the Delhi High Court. The issue was mediated before the Fashion Development Council of India as per the accordance of the parties and the was amicably settled within four working days of the institution of the suit.
Similarly, the Controller General of Patent Designs and Trade Marks, in collaboration with the Delhi Legal Services Authority (DLSA), in order to adopt alternative dispute resolution mechanisms for resolving IPR disputes as well as to deal with the overwhelming backlog, had referred around 500 pending oppositions and rectifications in the Trade Marks Registry, Delhi, to mediation and conciliation via a public notice, dated 31st March 2016, under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987.
This shows how mediation is one of the best remedy IP dispute resolutions, as it is cost efficient, ensures faster redressal and is a win-win for both parties.
