The Delhi High Court has permanently restrained Red Rose Industries, a footwear manufacturer, from using Harley-Davidson’s iconic Eagle logo, after finding the usage to be a clear case of trademark and copyright infringement. The court also imposed ₹5,00,000 as damages and legal costs on the defendant for unlawfully copying the American motorcycle giant’s distinctive branding.
"The defendant has taken an unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of the plaintiff’s trademarks/artistic works and has also deceived the unwary consumers of their association with the plaintiff."
— Justice Amit Bansal, Delhi High Court
Background of the Case
The case, CS(COMM) 609/2023, was filed by Harley-Davidson USA LLC, a globally known motorcycle brand that also deals in footwear, apparel, and other accessories. The company uses several distinctive logos, including its Eagle device/logo and the Bar & Shield design, which have gained worldwide recognition since the early 1900s.
The plaintiff submitted that due to its longstanding and continuous use of these trademarks since the 1930s, the logos have acquired distinctiveness and act as strong source identifiers across its global customer base in over 90 countries. Harley-Davidson holds more than 2200 trademark registrations globally, with several in India across categories including shoes, apparel, services, and marketing.
In India, Harley-Davidson entered operations in 2009 via its wholly owned subsidiary and later tied up with Hero MotoCorp. The company has an active digital presence and sells products through its official Indian website and dealership networks.
In July 2023, Harley-Davidson discovered that Red Rose Industries, owned by Mr. Vijaypal Dhayal and operating under the brand ‘Rontex,’ was selling footwear bearing a deceptively similar eagle logo.
"The defendant has not only copied the screaming eagle but also copied the outline of the Bar and Shield logo of the plaintiff. The defendant merely replaced the words ‘HARLEY-DAVIDSON CLOTHES’ with ‘SPORTS CASUAL’ while adopting the impugned mark."
— Delhi High Court
The infringing products were being sold both offline and online, particularly through platforms like Amazon, Flipkart, and IndiaMART. The plaintiff’s representative physically verified the defendant's premises, where 640 pairs of infringing shoes were discovered. A local commissioner appointed by the court inventoried the goods and confirmed the infringement.
On September 25, 2023, the court issued an interim injunction restraining the defendant from producing or selling footwear under the impugned mark. The order included both physical and online sales and directed status quo on the stock found at the defendant’s premises.
Despite multiple opportunities, the defendant failed to file a proper written statement or defend its position in court. Due to procedural delays and repeated defects in filing, the Joint Registrar closed the right to file the written statement on August 21, 2024.
"The expression ‘real’ directs the Court to examine whether there is a ‘realistic’ as opposed to ‘fanciful’ prospect of success."
— Su-Kam Power Systems Ltd. v. Kunwer Sachdev, cited in the judgment
Given these circumstances, the plaintiff applied for summary judgment under Order XIII-A of the CPC. Since the defendant showed no intent to contest the claims, and all facts remained uncontroverted, the court proceeded without requiring oral evidence.
Justice Amit Bansal found that the impugned logo was structurally and visually identical to Harley-Davidson’s registered marks. It was noted that the defendant:
- Replaced only the brand name while keeping the rest of the design elements the same.
- Intentionally adopted a misleadingly similar trade dress and logo to exploit Harley-Davidson’s goodwill.
- Sold such products online, creating a higher risk of consumer confusion.
The court also considered the Local Commissioner’s report, which found 640 infringing products and went unchallenged by the defendant.
- Permanent injunction against the defendant from using any logos similar or identical to Harley-Davidson’s registered trademarks.
- Destruction of infringing goods in the presence of Harley-Davidson’s representatives.
- ₹5,00,000 awarded to the plaintiff towards damages and litigation costs.
“There is no compelling reason for the recording of oral evidence… this is a fit case where summary judgment… can be passed in favour of the plaintiff.”
— Justice Amit Bansal
The court directed that a decree sheet be drawn up, and all pending applications in the matter were disposed of accordingly.
Case Title: H-D U. S. A., LLC vs. VIJAYPAL DHAYAL OWNER/ PROPRIETOR OF RED ROSE INDUSTRIES (CS(COMM) 609/2023)
