Sponsored
    Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : Christian Louboutin SAS & Anr Vs Shoe Boutique (Delhi High Court)
Appeal Number : CS(COMM) 583/2023
Date of Judgement/Order : 22/08/2023
Related Assessment Year :
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Sponsored

Christian Louboutin SAS & Anr Vs Shoe Boutique (Delhi High Court)

Conclusion: In present facts of the case, the Hon’ble High court observed that ChatGPT cannot be the basis of adjudication of legal or factual issues in a court of law. AI cannot substitute either the human intelligence or the humane element in the adjudicatory process. At best the tool could be utilised for a preliminary understanding or for preliminary research and nothing more.

Facts: The present suit was filed by Plaintiffs which are entities existing in France. The first shop of the Plaintiffs is stated to have opened in 1991 in Paris. The Plaintiffs known for the well-known ‘RED SOLE’ shoes which are manufactured and sold by them.

The case of the Plaintiffs is that their shoes have acquired enormous reputation and goodwill not only globally but also in India. Various Indian and international magazines have depicted the Plaintiffs’ shoes and advertisements. In India, the Plaintiffs’ products with the unique designs have been sold since February, 2012. The Plaintiffs have in view of the extensive reputation enjoyed by the Plaintiffs’ designs have also started a “Stopfake” program by which consumers or anyone interested could provide details of either counterfeit or look alike products which would then be looked into by the Plaintiffs.

The Plaintiffs have filed the present suit being aggrieved by the Defendant’s manufacture and sale of identical spike design shoes and footwear. The Defendants operated in various malls including Select Citywalk Mall, Saket from where the spike footwear has been picked up by the Plaintiffs’ investigators. The case of the Plaintiffs was that the Defendant firm was a partnership firm and that the Defendant is manufacturing identically designed shoes with the same get up. Purchases were made by the Plaintiffs both in Delhi, Hyderabad and other cities where the Defendant was located. It was the case of the Plaintiff’s that a comparison of the shoes shows that the Defendant has identically copied the shoe designs for which necessary pictorial representations were produced by the Petitioner.

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.

Sponsored

Join Taxguru’s Network for Latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Sponsored
Sponsored
Search Post by Date
July 2024
M T W T F S S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031