In a setback for leading global watchmakers, a Delhi commercial court has dismissed a trademark infringement suit filed by Rado along with other companies from the Swatch Group against a local trader. The ruling brings an end to the proceedings after the court found the claims insufficiently supported by evidence.
Failure to establish infringement or confusion
The court held that the plaintiffs failed to prove infringement or even a likelihood of confusion, noting that the case did not meet the standard of proof required, even on a preponderance of probabilities. The absence of concrete and verifiable evidence weighed heavily against the companies.
Brands cite legacy and global reputation
Before the court, Rado Uhren AG, Tissot SA, Omega SA and Longines Watch Co argued that their trademarks carried decades of global recognition, goodwill and brand value. They maintained that any unauthorised use of similar marks would harm their established reputation.
Dispute traced to Delhi market operations
The case stemmed from allegations made in October 2023, when a trader based in New Lajpat Rai Market was accused of selling watches bearing identical marks across South Delhi without issuing invoices. The companies subsequently approached the court seeking a permanent injunction, along with damages, delivery of goods and other reliefs.
One defendant settles, another contests
Proceedings against one of the defendants, Devesh Kumar Gupta, concluded on July 30, 2024 after he agreed to cease dealing in such products and undertook to destroy the seized stock. The remaining defendant, however, contested the allegations, stating that his business dealt only in low-cost local brands targeting a different customer segment.
Defence highlights gaps in evidence
The contesting defendant argued that there was no reliable proof linking him to the alleged sale of counterfeit goods. He pointed out that the Local Commissioner’s report had not been formally proven and that no invoices, sales records or customer testimonies were produced to substantiate the claims.
Court finds testimony insufficient
The court found merit in these arguments, observing that the plaintiffs’ authorised representative—who appeared as the sole witness—failed to clarify the source of his knowledge and was not present during the alleged raid. As a result, his testimony on the recovery of goods was deemed inadequate to establish infringement.
Lack of material evidence weakens case
The court further noted the absence of documentary proof showing that infringing watches had actually been sold. Even the items reportedly recovered during the Local Commissioner’s visit were neither produced before the court nor examined against original products.
No proof of counterfeit goods
Crucially, no expert evidence was presented to confirm that the seized watches were counterfeit. The witness also did not identify the items as infringing. In such circumstances, the court observed that the possibility of the goods being genuine could not be ruled out, ultimately leading to the dismissal of the suit.