Facts
The case centers on a trademark dispute in the luxury perfume industry between Fontaine Limited, the owner of the world-famous CREED brand, and several related Indian companies and their directors known as the defendants. CREED, started in 1760, is a high-end perfume house famous for its unique scents for men and women, built on years of use, ads, and strict quality checks that have created huge trust among buyers. Fontaine took over the CREED business in India in 2020 through deals that gave it full rights to the brand’s trademarks, including the CREED device mark registered in India under Class 3 for perfumes and protected under Classes 3, 4, and 35 via the Madrid Protocol since early 2022.
Before Fontaine’s takeover, a company called Erol International had a deal with Defendant No. 2 from 2017 to bring in, sell, and spread CREED products in India as the only allowed seller, with rights to use ads and promo stuff. Defendant No. 1, linked to Defendant No. 2, ran a CREED store in Delhi’s Chanakya Mall. After Fontaine bought the business, it kept supplying products to Defendants 1 and 2.
- In June 2021, Defendant No. 2 delayed payments on bills
- Payments made late in February 2022 after reminders
- Due to repeated issues, Fontaine let the deal end on 9 August 2022
Under the deal’s rules, Defendants 1 and 2 lost rights to buy, sell, or use CREED marks after termination.
Even after warnings, Defendants 1, 3, and 4— all part of the same group — kept selling CREED items through wrong channels like side shops and WhatsApp under names like ‘CREED the Chanakya’ to fool buyers into thinking they were still official. Defendants 5 to 7 were the bosses running daily work for these companies.
Fontaine sent stop notices on 30 August 2022 and 7 July 2023, offering to buy back good stock at cost price and destroy bad stuff under watch, but Defendants ignored them and kept going, hurting Fontaine’s name and sales.
Procedural Detail
Fontaine filed the suit in August 2023 for a full stop order against the misuse, plus orders to hand over and destroy wrong items, plus money for losses and costs.
- 18 August 2023: Court gave a quick one-sided stop order
- 29 August 2023: Checker inspection found materials with CREED marks
- 28 December 2023: Defendant No. 1 filed reply, admitting store operations till 29 April 2023
- 21 February 2024: Other defendants did not appear → right to answer closed
- 1 May 2024: Interim order made permanent
- 20 September 2024: Fontaine sought fast win under Order 13-A CPC
- 8 April 2025: Defendant No. 1 submitted late reply
- 14 November 2025: Final order issued
Dispute
The main fight was over whether Defendants could keep selling leftover CREED stock after their deal ended on 9 August 2022 without permission, using the CREED name on the store and WhatsApp to trick buyers.
- Fontaine: Claimed trademark misuse, loss of goodwill, and unfair trade
- Sought: Permanent stop, stock handover, Rs. 45 lakhs damages + costs
- Defendant No. 1: Accepted stop but disputed damages
- Others: Did not contest
Key issue: Whether evidence (checker report, test buys, chats) proved illegal sales post-termination and whether a full trial was needed.
Detailed Reasoning
The court applied a three-step test for quick judgment in commercial cases:
- Is the claim strong on first look?
- Would a trial be wasteful?
- Is there any genuine defense?
Since Defendants did not contest properly, the court held no real issue needed trial.
Trademark Violation
CREED was found famous and protected; rights were fully assigned to Fontaine. Defendants kept store running till April 2023 and sold via WhatsApp mid-2023 → clear violation.
Precedents Relied
- Su-Kam Power Systems Ltd. v. Kunwer Sachdev (2019) – Allowed fast judgment
- Aero Club v. M/s Sahara Belts (2023) – Use of seized stock list to calculate damages
- Hindustan Lever Ltd. v. Satish Kumar (2012); Ebay Inc. v. Mohd. Waseem (2022) – Non-appearance = admission
- Koninlijke Philips v. Amazestore (2019) – Repeat infringers deserve higher damages
Damages Awarded
Court accepted:
- Profit made: Rs. 37.43 lakhs
- Costs: Rs. 7.97 lakhs
All Defendants jointly liable. Items must be handed over in 4 weeks or face 12% interest.
Decision
| Particular | Details |
|---|---|
| Damages Awarded | Rs. 37,42,737 |
| Costs | Rs. 7,97,000 |
| Compliance | Within 4 weeks or 12% interest |
| Relief | Permanent injunction + destruction/handover of stock |
Application I.A. 40224/2024 allowed. Suit decreed; no more dates.
Case Details
- Case Title: Fontaine Limited Versus Berkeley Beauty Brands Private Limited & Ors.
- Order Date: 14 November 2025
- Case Number: CS(COMM) 564/2023
- Court: High Court of Delhi
- Hon’ble Judge: Ms. Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora
Disclaimer
The information shared here is intended to serve the public interest by offering insights and perspectives. However, readers are advised to exercise their own discretion when interpreting and applying this information. The content herein is subjective and may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.
Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi
