The Delhi High Court has granted relief to Louis Vuitton Malletier, a French high end luxury fashion house, by restraining a website from copying or publishing photographs which would infringe its copyright.

The high court said the plaintiff company has made out a clear prima facie case of copyright infringement and as such, it would be entitled to ‘ex parte ad interim’ relief so that such infringement does not continue.

It issued summons to website www.haute24.com on the suit and listed the matter on February 6, 2023 before the Joint Registrar (Judicial) for completion of the pleadings, including admission and denial of documents and marking of exhibits.

“Till the next date of hearing, defendants 1 and 2 (website) and all their agents, servants, etc. are injuncted from copying, issuing to the public or publishing, on their website www.haute24.com or through any other medium, the allegedly infringing photographs enlisted in ... Defendant 3, which is the domain name registrar of the domain name www.haute24.com is directed immediately and forthwith to block access to the said website...,” Justice C Hari Shankar said.

Plaintiff Louis Vuitton Malletier, the owner of a high-end fashion brand under which luxury and designer goods are manufactured and sold by it, asserted that it maintained a website https://louisvuitton.com, which displayed the line of its products available for sale.

In order to advertise these products, world-renowned photographers and high-end fashion models are hired on contract by the plaintiff, the plaint said, adding there are only three stores authorised to sell its products in India, out of which there is only one in Delhi.

The plaintiff’s products are sold online on the websites www.louisvuitton.com and www.24s.com, it said.

The plaint said in January and again in November 2022, it came to know that its copyrighted photographs were being misused by defendants 1 and 2 to sell their products on the website www.haute24.com.

The plaint alleged the defendants have copied the plaintiff’s photographs and have, therefore, infringed its copyright without its permission, and asserted they have no commercial relationship with the plaintiff or any authorisation from it to use or publish these photographs.

The alleged unlicensed use of the plaintiff’s photographs amounts to infringement of the copyright of the plaintiff, it said.