In FAO(OS) (COMM) 24/2023-DEL HC- Delhi HC upholds its earlier order restraining Brompton Lifestyle from using Yves Saint Laurent trademarks, imposes Rs 50,000 cost on Brompton for taking contrary stands & giving false assurances
Justices Manmohan & Saurabh Banerjee [09-05-2023]

Read Order: BROMPTON LIFESTYLE BRANDS PVT. LTD v. YVES SAINT LAURENT AND ANR 

Tulip Kanth

New Delhi, May 10, 2023: The Delhi High Court has granted relief to the multinational global luxury brand Yves Saint Laurent by dismissing the appeal filed by a company- Brompton Lifestyle challenging an order of the Single-Judge Bench whereby Brompton was restrained from using YSL marks.

“....adverting to the state of affairs vis-à-vis the conduct of Brompton of taking contrary stands before the learned Single Judge and before this Court; and giving false assurances and undertakings and handing over false photographs on 16th February, 2023 before this Court, especially whence it is trite law that a party has to approach the Court with clean hands, clearly reflects that Brompton has not only approached this Court with unclean hands but also has attempted to overreach this Court by portraying something which is far from the reality and the truth”, the Division Bench of Justice Manmohan & Justice Saurabh Banerjee held.

The first respondent -YVES Saint Laurent (YSL-original plaintiff), owner of registered well-known YSL marks had granted a franchise to the second respondent- Beverly Luxury Brands Limited for opening and operating a “Saint Laurent” boutique at The Chanakya Mall, New Delhi by virtue of a Franchise Agreement. 

Thereafter, disputes arose between YSL and Beverly which led to termination of the Franchise Agreement by YSL and the appellant-Brompton Lifestyle Brands Pvt. Ltd. (first original defendant) issued an Arbitration Notice to both YSL and Beverly on the strength of a Supply Agreement executed inter-se Beverly and itself. By virtue of the said Supply Agreement, Beverly granted Brompton the license to run the YSL Boutique and use the concept and the YSL marks without knowledge of YSL as Beverly was not authorized to do so.

When YSL Boutique became operational under the occupation of Brompton, despite termination of the Franchise Agreement, YSL instituted a suit  for infringement of trademarks.  The Single Judge restrained Brompton from using YSL marks or any mark similar to any of the YSL marks. Hence the appeal was filed by Brompton before the  Division Bench.

The Bench was of the opinion that Brompton had no right to use, sell, deal and offer for sale YSL products bearing the YSL marks as YSL had entered into the Franchise Agreement with Beverly, to which Brompton was not a signatory,. Brompton, being a rank outsider with no privity of contract with YSL couldnot contend that it had a right to use, sell, deal and offer for sale YSL products bearing the YSL marks. 

The  Franchise Agreement revealed that YSL executed the Franchise Agreement to enter into the Indian market only based on the assurances and projections made by Beverly and the Supply Agreement from which Brompton claimed to derive its rights was entered into by Beverly with Brompton in contravention of the earlier original Franchise Agreement with YSL. 

In view of the admission of Brompton of the unchallenged termination of the Franchise Agreement by YSL, there was no plausible reason as to why Brompton could be entitled/ permitted to use YSL marks. Post termination of the Franchise Agreement by YSL and non-challenge thereof by Beverly left no doubt that Brompton couldnot use, sell, offer for sale, or deal in any of the YSL marks in any manner as nothing survived in favor of Brompton in the said YSL marks belonging to YSL.

As per the Bench, Brompton couldn't pick and choose from extracts to shift its stand at successive stages, especially when the proceedings were arising out of and were pertaining to the same suit, before two different Courts. The Bench noted that the act of Brompton in taking one stand of being a separate entity having no association with Beverly before the Single Judge and then taking a diametrically opposite stand of being the same as Beverly before the Division Bench, had to be dealt with sternly.

Not only this but the Bench also considered the conduct of Brompton in taking contrary stands, giving false assurances and handing over false photographs. This reflected that Brompton had not approached the Court with unclean hands but also had attempted to overreach this Court by portraying something which was far from the reality.

For such reasons, the Bench found no merit in either the case of Brompton or the grounds urged by it. Noticing that Brompton had not been able to make out any reasonable case on merits calling for any kind of interference with the impugned judgment under challenge, the Bench dismissed the appeal of Brompton and imposed nominal cost of Rs 50,000 on Brompton to be paid to YSL.