Levi Strauss And Co vs Kewal Kiran Clothing Limited
- Court
- Delhi High Court
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CS(COMM) 414/2025 & I.A. 11359/2025
Reserved on: 27.11. 2025
Date of Decision: 29.05.2026
Date of uploading: 30.05.2026
LEVI STRAUSS AND CO .....Plaintiff
Through: Mr. Chander M. Lall, Sr. Adv. with
Mr Urfee Roomi, Ms. Janaki Arun,
Mr. Jaskaran Singh, Ms. Annanya
Mehan and Mr. Arpit Singhal, Advs.
versus
KEWAL KIRAN CLOTHING LIMITED .....Defendant
Through: Mr. J. Sai Deepak, Sr. Adv. with, Mr.
Avinash and Ms. Soumya Gulati,
Advs.
%
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA
J U D G M E N T
MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J:
I.A. 11359/2025
1. This is an application filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read
with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 on behalf of the
Plaintiff seeking an interim injunction against the Defendant.
2. Case set-up by the Plaintiff in the captioned application is as under: -
2.1. The Plaintiff is one of the world’s leading denim and apparel
companies. Plaintiff is the registered proprietor of the Arcuate Stitching
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RASHMI
DABAS
Signing Date:30.05.2026
17:46
CS(COMM) 414/2025 Page 1 of 32
Design Mark, which has been used on the back pockets of its denim jeans
since 1873, with the earliest registration in the USA dating back to 1943.
2.2. In 1994, Plaintiff incorporated a subsidiary in India, namely Levi
Strauss (India) Private Limited and expanded its presence in India since
1
then. Plaintiff also holds registrations in India, for its Arcuate Stitching
Design Marks, the earliest of which date back to 1979.
2.3. It is stated that the said Arcuate Stitching Design Mark is a distinctive,
non-functional and source-identifying feature of its denim jeans. The design
consists of 2 double-stitched arcs that emerge from the midpoints of the
vertical edges of the back pocket, curve inward, and converge somewhere
around or below the centre point of the back pocket. The Plaintiff’s Arcuate
Stitching Design Mark are reproduced hereunder:
2.4. The mark is stated to have been used continuously for over 150 years
and has acquired substantial goodwill and reputation worldwide. It is stated
that the Arcuate Stitching Design Mark has been recognised as a well-known
mark in terms of Section 2(1)(zg) and Section 11(6) of the Trade Marks Act,
1999 [‘Act’], by the coordinate Bench of this Court in CS(COMM)
657/2021 titled as Levi Strauss & Co. v. Imperial Online Services Pvt.
2
Ltd. vide judgment dated 24.03.2022.
1
Paragraph no. 20 of the captioned application.
2
2022:DHC:1222
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RASHMI
DABAS
Signing Date:30.05.2026
17:46
CS(COMM) 414/2025 Page 2 of 32
2.5. Plaintiff’s net global revenues for the year ended 2024 exceeded Rs.
55,177 crores, while its turnover from sales in India for FY 2022-23 was
approximately Rs. 1,766 crores.
2.6. The Defendant, Kewal Kiran Clothing Limited, is engaged in the
business of manufacturing and selling apparel, including denim jeans, under
its brands INTEGRITI, KILLER and LAWMAN Pg3. The Plaintiff alleges
that the Defendant is using stitching design(s) on the back pockets of its
denim jeans, which are deceptively similar to the Plaintiff’s Arcuate
Stitching Design Mark and have been collectively described as ‘Defendant’s
impugned stitching Design Marks’. The Defendant’s impugned stitching
Design Marks are reproduced hereunder:
2.7. It is stated that the Defendant’s products bearing the impugned
stitching designs marks are available for purchase on the Defendant’s
official websites at ‘ www.integriti.in ’, ‘ www.killerjeans.com ’, and
‘ www.lawmanpg3.com ’, on several e-commerce platforms such as Amazon,
Flipkart, as well as through retail clothing chains such as Reliance Trends,
etc.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RASHMI
DABAS
Signing Date:30.05.2026
17:46
CS(COMM) 414/2025 Page 3 of 32
2.8. In 2014, Plaintiff first came to know that the Defendant was
selling/offering for sale denim jeans bearing stitching designs on back
pockets nearly identical/deceptively similar to the Plaintiff’s Arcuate
Stitching Design Mark under the Defendant’s KILLER brand. Thereafter,
the Plaintiff sent a cease-and-desist letter to the Defendant on 27.10.2015
however, no response was received.
2.9. In May 2017, the Plaintiff had filed a trademark infringement suit
bearing suit no. TM No. 44/17 against the Defendant before the District
Court, Saket, to restrain the Defendants from using the stitching marks
which were deceptively similar to the Plaintiff’s Arcuate Stitching Design
Mark; however, the said suit was returned, vide order dated 24.11.2018, for
want of territorial jurisdiction.
2.10. Thereafter, the Defendant in December 2018 filed a design
infringement suit against the Plaintiff before the High Court of Judicature at
Bombay bearing Commercial IP Suit No. 610/2018, alleging infringement of
its registered ‘Vertebrae Design’ bearing Design registration no. 230831. It
is stated that the Supreme Court stayed the said proceedings vide order dated
10.05.2019.
2.11. Subsequently, the parties entered into a Settlement Agreement dated
3
27.05.2019 [‘Settlement Agreement/Agreement’], resolving their disputes
concerning the Plaintiff’s Arcuate Stitching Design Mark and the
Defendant’s Vertebrae Design.
2.12. Under the said Agreement, the Defendant acknowledged the
Plaintiff’s rights in the Arcuate Stitching Design Mark and undertook not to
3
Annexed as Document no. 40 filed along with the plaint
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RASHMI
DABAS
Signing Date:30.05.2026
17:46
CS(COMM) 414/2025 Page 4 of 32
use stitching designs on back pockets similar or substantially similar to the
Plaintiff’s Arcuate Stitching Design Mark. The Plaintiff agreed not to object
to the Defendants’ use of, and/or any registrations/applications to register,
the stitching designs contained in Annexures D and E to the Agreement in
the countries of Asia and Africa (‘agreed territory’), subject to the
Defendant’s compliance with the terms of the Agreement. The Defendant
also represented that it had not used and would not use the designs contained
in Annexure F to the Agreement, and agreed to cancel design registrations
relating to the designs depicted in Annexure G to the Agreement, against
which the Plaintiff had filed cancellation petitions.
2.13. It is stated that on 20.04.2023, Plaintiff sent a cease-and-desist notice
to the Defendant against the use of the impugned KILLER stitching Design
Marks, as well as regarding the Plaintiff’s objections to the Defendant’s
trade mark applications for two stitching designs, bearing application nos.
5356748 and 5359750, which were opposed by the Plaintiff. The Defendant
subsequently withdrew the said trademark applications.
2.14. In June 2024, the Plaintiff discovered that the Defendant was using
the impugned Stitching Design Mark on its jeans bearing the brand
INTEGRITI [‘impugned INTEGRITI stitching design marks’], which,
according to the Plaintiff, corresponds to the infringing designs enlisted in
Annexure F to the Settlement Agreement, and the said impugned design was
therefore not permissible. It is stated that immediately thereafter, the
Plaintiff issued a cease-and-desist notice dated 25.06.2024, to which the
Defendant gave a holding reply on 18.07.2024, acknowledging receipt and
seeking time to respond; however, the Defendant did not furnish any
detailed response thereafter.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RASHMI
DABAS
Signing Date:30.05.2026
17:46
CS(COMM) 414/2025 Page 5 of 32
2.15. It is stated that the Defendant also owns a Design registration bearing
No. 349216-001, which resembles the impugned INTEGRITI Stitching
design mark. It is stated that the said design application is dated 09.09.2021,
i.e., subsequent to the Defendant entering into the Settlement Agreement.
The mark bearing registration no. 349216-001 is reproduced hereunder:
2.16. In January 2025, the Plaintiff came to know that the Defendant, other
than selling denim jeans bearing the impugned INTEGRITI Stitching design
marks in violation of the Settlement Agreement, was also selling jeans
bearing the impugned KILLER Stitching Design Marks, which violates
Clause 12 of the Agreement and as the impugned design was near identical
to the designs enlisted in Annexure G to the Agreement, which were
acknowledged by the Defendant as infringing.
2.17. The Plaintiff also came across the impugned stitching Design Marks
under the Defendant’s LAWMAN Pg3 brand [‘impugned LAWMAN
stitching design mark’], which is deceptively similar to its Arcuate Stitching
Design Mark.
2.18. It is stated that the Plaintiff issued another notice dated 14.02.2025,
calling upon the Defendant to cease-and-desist from using the Defendant’s
impugned stitching Design Marks, to which the Defendants replied on
04.03.2025, denying all allegations and contending that use of the impugned
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RASHMI
DABAS
Signing Date:30.05.2026
17:46
CS(COMM) 414/2025 Page 6 of 32
KILLER stitching design marks was permitted under Paragraph 7 of the
Agreement, which refers to Annexure D and E to the Agreement. The
Defendants further asserted that there was no similarity between the
impugned LAWMAN stitching design mark and the Plaintiff’s Arcuate
Design Mark, and that the Plaintiff’s Arcuate Design Mark and the
impugned INTEGRITI stitching design mark were not substantially similar.
2.19. In response, the Plaintiff issued a rebuttal letter dated 17.03.2025,
once again demanding that the Defendants cease and desist from using the
Defendant’s impugned stitching Designs Mark. The Defendants replied on
19.04.2025, reiterating their denial of the Plaintiff’s allegations.
Submissions by the Plaintiff
3. Learned senior counsel for the Plaintiff submits that such use by the
Defendant of its impugned INTEGRITI Stitching Design Mark, and its act
of filing and obtaining a design registration for its INTEGRITI Stitching
design marks, is violative of its warranties contained in Paragraph 10 of the
Agreement and amounts to breach of contract by the Defendant.
3.1. He submits that the Defendant’s impugned KILLER stitching design
marks correspond to or resemble the prohibited designs depicted under
Annexure G of the Agreement, which the Defendant had agreed to cancel
and not maintain. He submits that the Defendant cannot rely on its
4
trademark registrations for these impugned stitching design marks, as the
same are liable to cancellation as per Clause 12 of the Settlement Agreement
and cannot defeat the Plaintiff’s proprietary rights.
3.2. He submits that the Defendant’s KILLER stitching Design marks are
different from the permitted designs included in Annexure D and E to the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RASHMI
DABAS
Signing Date:30.05.2026
17:46
CS(COMM) 414/2025 Page 7 of 32
Agreement, which were agreed between the parties to be used by the
Defendant in the agreed territory, so long as the Defendant remained in
compliance with the Agreement.
5
3.3. As regards the impugned LAWMAN Pg3 stitching designs marks, he
submits that the Defendant has substantially adopted the Plaintiff’s Arcuate
Stitching Design Mark with only minor variations, including a zigzag
element, which does not sufficiently distinguish the rival designs when used
on denim back pockets and therefore are liable to be rectified.
3.4. He submits that the defendant has adopted and started an entire range
of stitching marks, including the marks under Annexure D, E, F and G of the
Agreement. He submits that the Defendant’s use of the INTEGRITI,
KILLER and LAWMAN Pg3 impugned stitching design marks amounts to
trademark infringement, passing off, unfair competition and breach of the
Settlement Agreement and that the Defendant’s design(s) and trademark
registration(s) in respect of the impugned stitching design marks are liable to
be cancelled, as they are near identical and/or deceptively similar to the
Plaintiff’s prior and well-known Arcuate Stitching Design Mark.
3.5. He submits that therefore, the Plaintiff is entitled to seek an injunction
against the Defendant.
Submissions by the Defendant
4. Learned senior counsel for the Defendant submits that the
Defendant’s impugned KILLER stitching design marks is only a variation of
the permitted designs under Annexures C, D and E to the Agreement and,
therefore, does not fall within the prohibited category. He submits that the
4
Paragraph no. 44 of the captioned application
5
Paragraph no. 51 of the captioned application
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RASHMI
DABAS
Signing Date:30.05.2026
17:46
CS(COMM) 414/2025 Page 8 of 32
Settlement Agreement nowhere states that the Defendant is barred from
using a variation of this design that meets at the centre [of the back pocket].
Even if the Plaintiff treats the centring of the KILLER design as a material
variation, the Defendant submits that such variation would still remain
covered by the expressly permitted designs under Annexures C, D and E of
the Agreement, and cannot be treated as a breach of the Settlement
Agreement.
4.1. He submits that the impugned INTEGRITI stitching design marks do
not fall within the prohibited design enlisted under Annexure F of the
Settlement Agreement; Annexure F depicts a design with four [4] stitches
and a slanted orientation, whereas the Defendant’s impugned INTEGRITI
stitching design marks has only two [2] stitches and is centred. He submits
that these differences are visually apparent and materially distinguish the
Defendant’s design. He submits that the Agreement neither prohibits a
centred design nor specifies any fixed angle or orientation of the stitches; it
only contains pictorial representations and therefore, the Plaintiff cannot,
after four [4] years of execution of the Agreement, seek to expand or
reinterpret its terms beyond what was expressly agreed between the parties.
He submits that, in fact, the impugned design is not covered under the
Agreement.
4.2. He further submits that if ‘centring’ is treated as relevant, then the
difference in the number of stitches must also be treated as material. He
submits that the prohibited design in Annexure F to the Agreement is neither
centred nor two-stitched, whereas the Defendant’s design is both and
therefore, no breach or infringement can be inferred.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RASHMI
DABAS
Signing Date:30.05.2026
17:46
CS(COMM) 414/2025 Page 9 of 32
4.3. He states that, as regards the LAWMAN Pg3 design, the same is not
part of the Settlement Agreement and is not a prohibited design thereunder.
The Plaintiff’s comparison of the LAWMAN Pg3 design with Annexure A to
the Agreement is also misplaced, as the two designs are not similar. Further,
6
the Defendant holds valid trademark registrations for the LAWMAN Pg3
design, which has not been rectified or cancelled; accordingly, the
Defendant’s use of the said registered design cannot be restrained by
enlarging the scope of the Agreement.
Findings and Analysis
5. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused
the record.
6. The Plaintiff is the proprietor of Arcuate Stitching Design Mark,
which is registered in India since 23.08.1979, and it has been declared a
well-known mark by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Levi Strauss v.
Imperial Online Services (supra) in the year 2022, wherein the relevant
paragraphs read as under:
“19. It is important to note that the trade mark in question i.e., the
‘ Arcuate Stitching Design’ mark has been used on jeans, pants, and
trousers of the Plaintiff since the first pair of jeans were created by it
in the year 1873 and it serves as a unique identifier in respect of the
goods of the Plaintiff. The first trade mark registration for the
‘Arcuate Stitching Design’ mark dates back to 1943, granted in the
US. Since then, the mark has been registered as a trade mark by the
Plaintiffs in numerous countries, as is evident from the documents
placed on record. It is also a registered trade mark in India, details of
which is as under:
6
Details at paragraph 51 of the captioned application
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RASHMI
DABAS
Signing Date:30.05.2026
17:46
CS(COMM) 414/2025 Page 10 of 32
20. This Court is of the opinion that the ‘Arcuate Stitching Design’
mark has become ‘well known’ to the public which uses garments
carrying the said mark, that the use of the ‘ Arcuate Stitching Design’
mark in relation to other goods or services would likely be taken as
indicating a connection between those goods and the Plaintiff. The
mark of the Plaintiff is thus an extremely distinctive mark which has
acquired secondary meaning due to extensive use spanning over one
and a half century.
21. On facts, the Defendants have already agreed to the passing of a
permanent injunction. Considering the stand taken by ld. Counsel for
the Defendants before the Court, it is deemed appropriate to bring an
end to this dispute by decreeing the suit by awarding partial costs to
the Plaintiff.
22. Accordingly, in recognition of the trademark rights and common
law rights in the ‘ Arcuate Stitching Design’ mark in favour of the
Plaintiff, the suit is decreed in terms of paragraphs 76(a), 76(b),
76(c) & 76(d) of the plaint. The Defendants also stand restrained
from seeking any statutory rights by applying for trademarks or
copyrights in respect of the ‘ Arcuate Stitching Design ’ mark. If any
applications have been filed by the Defendant, the same shall be
withdrawn within 30 days.
23. Insofar as the images, which are currently being displayed on
various e-commerce platforms, are concerned, the Defendants shall
write to the said e-commerce platforms and shall ensure that the said
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RASHMI
DABAS
Signing Date:30.05.2026
17:46
CS(COMM) 414/2025 Page 11 of 32
images are removed within a maximum period of 30 days from
today. Ld. counsel for the Plaintiff shall be kept in the loop of
communication which will be addressed to the e-commerce
platforms. All the e-commerce platforms are directed to ensure that
the said images containing the ‘ Arcuate Stitching Design’ mark of
the Plaintiff are removed from their websites and that no further sale
of any garments with the ‘ Arcuate Stitching Design’ mark is
permitted on their platforms by the Defendants.
24. The Defendants shall further pay a sum of Rs.4 lakhs within four
weeks to the Plaintiff as nominal costs in view of the fact that the
Defendants have completely failed to abide by their repeated
undertakings, as also the fact that exhibition of images on e-
commerce platforms constitutes violation of the ad interim
injunction passed by this Court. However, if it is found that there is
non-compliance of the present order within the period of 30 days or
if the Defendants indulge in any action which is violative of the
injunction orders being passed, the Plaintiff is given liberty to
approach this Court.
25. Considering the long period of 150 years, during which the
‘Arcuate Stitching Design’ mark has been used for Levi’s jeans,
trousers, pants and other garments, and the factors outlined above,
the said mark has achieved the status of a well-known mark.
Accordingly, a decree of declaration declaring the said mark as a
‘well-known’ mark in terms of paragraph 76(h) of the plaint is also
passed.”
7. The registered trademarks of the Plaintiff pertaining to Arcuate
Stitching Design Mark are :-
S. Date of
Trademark Reg. No. Class
No.
TMJ
reg.
No.
1.
851939 25 19/04/1999 9998-2
09,14,
1625122
2.
27/11/2007 1426
18
3.
382357 25 23/10/1981 959
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RASHMI
DABAS
Signing Date:30.05.2026
17:46
CS(COMM) 414/2025 Page 12 of 32
4.
352692 25 23/08/1979 903
5.
2063193 25 03/12/2010 1840
8. It is a matter of record that the Plaintiff and the Defendant entered into
a Settlement Agreement dated 27.05.2019.
9. The aforenoted facts are undisputed.
10. However, the present suit has been filed by the Plaintiff alleging that
the Defendant has adopted impugned stitching design marks on the back
pockets of the jeans for its brand KILLER, INTEGRITI and LAWMAN
Pg3, which are in direct contravention of the admissions and understanding
recorded in the Settlement Agreement. The Plaintiff contends that the
Agreement enlists prohibited designs at Annexure B, Annexure F and
Annexure G. The Plaintiff contends that the impugned KILLER stitching
design marks on the jeans are in contravention of the prohibited design
enlisted at serial nos. 4 and 5 of Annexure G to the Agreement, and the
impugned INTEGRITI stitching design marks on the jeans are in
contravention of the prohibited designs enlisted at Annexure F to the
Agreement. Needless to state, the Defendant disputes the said contentions.
11. In this background, it is relevant to examine the relevant Clauses of
the Settlement Agreement.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RASHMI
DABAS
Signing Date:30.05.2026
17:46
CS(COMM) 414/2025 Page 13 of 32
12. In the Settlement Agreement, the Defendant acknowledged the
Plaintiff’s proprietary rights in the Arcuate Stitching Design Mark. The
relevant recital and Clauses of the Agreement are as under:
“A. WHEREAS , LS&Co. is the proprietor of a large number of trade
marks worldwide including in India, including its famous Arcuate
Stitching Design trade mark (hereinafter referred to as the "Arcuate
trade mark"). Illustrative examples of LS&Co.'s registrations for the
Arcuate trade mark are annexed hereto as Annexure 'A'.
…
In respect of the Arcuate Stitching Design Trade Mark:
1. KKCL recognizes the rights of LS&Co. in the Arcuate trade mark
worldwide, including in India, and admits that LS&Co. has superior
rights in, and is the proprietor of, the Arcuate trade mark as set out
(without limitation) in Annexure A hereto.
…
4. KKCL warrants that it shall not anywhere in the world use, nor
claim any trademark rights nor shall make any attempt to register a
mark or a design which is identical or similar to the Arcuate trade
mark as set out in Annexure A, including without limitation the KKCL
Designs as set out in Annexure B hereto.”
[Emphasis Supplied]
13. In the said Agreement, Defendant acknowledged that the stitching
designs being used by it on the back pocket were substantially similar to the
Plaintiff’s Arcuate Stitching Design Mark and undertook to discontinue the
use of the said similar marks. This admission of the Defendant was recorded
at recital B and Clause 3 of the Agreement. Defendant enlisted the infringing
designs at Annexure B to the Agreement and undertook not to use the said
marks. The Defendant undertook to not manufacture any other design that is
substantially similar to the Plaintiff’s Arcuate Stitching Design Mark. The
relevant recital and Clause of the Agreement are as under: -
B. AND WHEREAS , KKCL has manufactured, distributed,
advertised and/or sold jeans and other apparel under various brand
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RASHMI
DABAS
Signing Date:30.05.2026
17:46
CS(COMM) 414/2025 Page 14 of 32
names including but not limited to KILLER, LAWMAN, INTIGRITY
and EASIES which have displayed pocket stitching designs which
LS&Co. allegedly claims violate its rights in the Ancuate trade mark
(hereinafter collectively referred to as the "KKCL Designs"), Images
of offending KKCL Designs are annexed hereto as Annexure ‘B'
which KKC allegedly claims to be generic/common to trade.
3. KKCL undertakes that it will not in the future manufacture, license,
sell, offer for sale, distribute, import, export, advertise, promote, or
display any jeans or apparel, that display/bear any of the KKCL
Designs as set out in Annexure B hereto or any other design that is
substantially similar to LS&Co. 's Arcuate trade mark as set out in
Annexure A hereto anywhere in the world.
[Emphasis Supplied]
14. The Plaintiff had, in fact, filed cancellation petitions against certain
design registrations pertaining to stitching designs of the Defendant. Under
the Agreement, Defendant agreed to discontinue the use of the design
registrations enlisted at Annexure G of the Agreement. Also, the Plaintiff
agreed to the Defendant’s use of the design registrations enlisted at
Annexure C of the Agreement and withdraw its cancellation petitions
against the said registrations. Thus, Defendant acknowledged that it cannot
use the design registrations enlisted at Annexure G of the Agreement and the
Plaintiff acknowledged the Defendant’s rights to use the design registrations
enlisted at Annexure C of the Agreement. This understanding was recorded
in recital G and Clause 12 of the Agreement, which reads as follows: -
G. AND WHEREAS, LS&Co. has filed cancellation petitions against
certain design registrations of KKCL before the Learned Controller
of Patents & Designs, Kolkata, as set forth in Annexures 'C and G' .
12. KKCL shall cancel the design registrations referenced and
depicted in Annexure 'G' hereto within fourteen (14) days hereof
under intimation to L.S&Co., and KKCL agrees that it will not in the
future apply for, register, or maintain a design registration for the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RASHMI
DABAS
Signing Date:30.05.2026
17:46
CS(COMM) 414/2025 Page 15 of 32
designs depicted in Annexure G. LS&Co. agrees to withdraw within
fourteen (14) days from the date hereof under intimation to KKCL
the cancellation petitions against KKCL Designs as Detailed in
Annexure C and the cancellation petitions against the remaining
KKCL Designs as detailed in Annexure G will become infructuous
or will be withdrawn subject to the concerned design registrations
being withdrawn by KKCL Except for the design registrations
specifically referenced in this Agreement, KKCL warrants that it
does not own or have any interest in any design applications or
registrations anywhere in the world that consist of or include any
pocket stitching design similar or identical to KKCL Designs as set
out in Annexure E.
[Emphasis Supplied]
Thus, Annexure G enlists the prohibited designs and Annexure C
enlists the permitted designs.
15. The Plaintiff agreed that the Defendant was entitled to use the pocket
stitching designs set out in Annexures D and E to the Agreement. This
understanding was expressly recorded in Clauses 7, 8 and 11 of the
Agreement, which also dealt with the territorial scope of the parties’
arrangement. The relevant Clauses read as under: -
7. LS&Co. agrees that it will not object to or challenge the use by
KKCL of the stitching design as detailed in Annexure "D' and
Annexure *E" in the countries of Asia and Africa (which for clarity
also includes Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the
United Arab Emirates) (collectively hereinafter the "Agreed
Territory"). LS&Co. reserves its right to challenge or object to any use
of the KKCL Design as detailed in Annexure D and Annexure E
outside the Agreed Territory.
8. LS&Co. further agrees that it will not object to or challenge any
registration or application to register by KKCL of the KKCL Design
as detailed in Annexure D in the Agreed Territory. KKCL undertakes
that it shall not seek registration of KKCL Design as detailed in
Annexure D in jurisdiction outside the Agreed Territory. LS&Co.
reserves its right to challenge or object to any registration or
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RASHMI
DABAS
Signing Date:30.05.2026
17:46
CS(COMM) 414/2025 Page 16 of 32
application to register the KKCL Design as detailed in Annexure D or
any mark similar or identical thereto outside the Agreed Territory.
11. LS&Co. warrants that it shall not claim against KKCL that the
pocket stitching design depicted in Annexure D and Annexure E
hereto infringes LS&Co's trademark rights before any forum in the
future, anywhere in the Agreed Territory, so long as KKCL complies
with the terms and conditions of this Agreement and does not infringe
any LS&Co. trade marks.
[Emphasis Supplied]
14.1 The stitching designs enlisted in Annexure D, E, and G of the
Agreement are presently a subject matter of dispute in this suit, in the
context of the brand KILLER. The Defendant contends that the impugned
KILLER stitching design marks are in conformity with the permissible
designs enlisted at Annexure D and E of the Agreement, whereas the
Plaintiff contends that the impugned stitching design marks correspond to
the prohibited design nos. 4 and 5 enlisted in Annexure G to the Agreement.
16. In the Settlement Agreement, the Defendant agreed that it would not
use the stitching designs depicted in Annexure F. This understanding was
recorded at Clause 10.
16.1. The Plaintiff contends that the impugned INTEGRITI stitching design
marks used by the Defendant are similar to the prohibited design enlisted in
Annexure F to the Agreement. The Defendant, on the other hand, contends
that the impugned INTEGRITI stitching design marks used by it are not a
part of the Settlement Agreement.
17. The Defendant contends that the impugned LAWMAN stitching
design marks used by the Defendant are not a subject matter of the
Settlement Agreement. The Plaintiff has not objected to this.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RASHMI
DABAS
Signing Date:30.05.2026
17:46
CS(COMM) 414/2025 Page 17 of 32
18. In this background, this Court deems it appropriate to enlist the
Defendant’s impugned stitching design marks. The Plaintiff has set out the
Defendant’s stitching design marks at paragraph 95 of the plaint. The
Defendant’s stand qua the said allegation is also set out at paragraph 2 of its
written submissions, which is reproduced hereunder:
“2. For ease of reference, please refer to the table below:
”
I. Issue pertaining to the impugned KILLER stitching design marks
19. This Court shall first adjudicate on the assertion of the Plaintiff that
the impugned KILLER stitching design marks correspond to the prohibited
design enlisted at serial nos. 4 and 5 of Annexure G to the Agreement and
the Defendant’s denial thereto.
20. The Plaintiff has set out a comparison of the impugned KILLER
stitching design marks in juxtaposition with the permissible design in
Annexure D and E, as well as with the prohibited design in Annexure G. The
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RASHMI
DABAS
Signing Date:30.05.2026
17:46
CS(COMM) 414/2025 Page 18 of 32
7 8
comparison is set out as Annexure 5 to the written submissions . The
Plaintiff has buttressed its submission by depicting the permissible Annexure
E design in a grid to show that the placement of the meeting of the two arcs
on the pocket is in Column no. 2, which is a left indent, whereas in the
impugned stitching design, the meeting of the two [2] arcs is in Column no.
3 of the grid, which is the centre of the pocket. The grid comparison has
9
been set out at Annexure 6 of the written submissions. The grid has been
created by using five [5] columns and four rows. The grid comparison is
reproduced hereunder:
21. The Defendant relies upon the permitted designs enlisted in Annexure
D and Annexure E of the Agreement to contend that its impugned KILLER
stitching design mark is in conformity with the Agreement.
A perusal of the design no. 1 of Annexure D of the Agreement shows
that the position of the meeting of the two arcs has a left indent, and in
7
Page 14 of the written submissions dated 25.08.2025.
8
Also annexed as Schedule I of this Order
9
Also, Document No. 51 filed along with the plaint
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RASHMI
DABAS
Signing Date:30.05.2026
17:46
CS(COMM) 414/2025 Page 19 of 32
design no. 2 of Annexure D, the meeting of the two arcs has a right indent.
The two arcs clearly do not meet at the centre of the pocket in either of the
designs.
Similarly, the meeting of the two arcs in design no. 1 of Annexure E
to the Agreement has a left indent, and in design no. 2 of Annexure E to the
Agreement, the meeting of the two arcs has a right indent. The two arcs
clearly do not meet at the centre of the pocket in either of the designs.
22. In contrast, in the prohibited designs set out in Annexure G to the
Agreement, design no. 4 shows the two arcs positioned closer to the centre
of the pocket, though not exactly at the centre. Likewise, design no. 5 also
depicts the two arcs nearer to the centre, but not precisely at the centre of the
pocket.
23. Upon a comparison of the permissible designs set out in Annexures D
and E of the Agreement with the prohibited designs contained in Annexure
G, and with the Plaintiff’s Arcuate Stitching Design Mark, on a prima facie
opinion it appears to this Court that the intention behind prohibiting the
design nos. 4 and 5 at Annexure G to the Agreement, was that the two [2]
arcs were meeting close to the centre of the pocket, whereas the arcs in the
permitted designs at Annexure D and E had a left or right indent. This also
appears to be the consistent intent in the prohibited designs enlisted at serial
nos. 1, 2 and 3 of Annexure G to the Agreement and also in the designs
prohibited at Annexure B to the Agreement.
24. The Defendant’s contention that the impugned KILLER stitching
design mark is as per Annexure D and E of the Agreement fails to persuade
this Court. The submission that the impugned KILLER design mark is
merely a variation of the permitted designs is untenable, as it overlooks the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RASHMI
DABAS
Signing Date:30.05.2026
17:46
CS(COMM) 414/2025 Page 20 of 32
prohibition documented in Annexures G and B of the Agreement. A bare
perusal of the prohibited designs shows that designs where the two arcs meet
at, or close to, the centre of the pocket, were specifically excluded from the
permissible category.
25. In addition, the Plaintiff has contended that the impugned KILLER
stitching design mark has a pointed (left) arc, which pointed arc was
prohibited as evidenced from design nos. 4 and 5 in Annexure G to the
Agreement. The Plaintiff contended that in the permitted designs at
Annexure D and E of the Agreement, the arcs had a flatter curve and not a
pointed arc. The Defendant has not responded to this submission. This Court
on a comparison of the prohibited designs in Annexure G and permitted
designs in Annexure D and E of the Agreement, finds that indeed there is
difference in the arcs. The pointed arc has been prohibited at Annexure G of
the Agreement.
26. The Plaintiff has also drawn this Court’s attention to the emails
exchanged between the parties in 2023 to show that the Plaintiff has
consistently opposed any use of stitching design, which is akin to prohibited
designs nos. 4 and 5 at Annexure G of the Agreement. The Plaintiff has
specifically relied upon the letter dated 20.04.2023 to show that it had
objected to Defendant’s adoption of a stitching design where the two arcs
meet at the centre, as it was akin to the prohibited designs. This Court has
perused the correspondence exchanged between the parties in the year 2023
and more specifically, the notice dated 20.04.2023 and the correspondence
which followed. The stitching designs objected to by the Plaintiff were
represented by the Defendant as having been discontinued in its letter dated
21.06.2023, and this brought a quietus to the matter in 2023. However, the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RASHMI
DABAS
Signing Date:30.05.2026
17:46
CS(COMM) 414/2025 Page 21 of 32
said correspondence indeed shows that the Plaintiff has consistently objected
to any design in which the two arcs meet at the centre of the back pocket. In
this Court’s opinion, the Plaintiff’s claims in this suit are consistent with its
stand in the correspondence exchanged between the parties in 2023.
27. The Plaintiff has therefore, made out a prima facie case for injuncting
the Defendant from using the impugned KILLER stitching design mark for
the jeans, as the arcs are pointed and meet close to the centre of the pocket
which makes the impugned design near identical to the prohibited designs in
Annexure G. The recitals and Clauses of the Agreement evidence that the
Defendant acknowledged that the prohibited designs are deceptively similar
to the Plaintiff’s registered mark Arcuate Stitching Design Mark and that it
will not use the said designs in the future. The Plaintiff has therefore made
out a prima facie case in its favour.
II. Issue pertaining to the impugned INTEGRITI stitching design marks
28. The Plaintiff has contended that under the Agreement, the Defendant
undertook not to use any stitching design marks that are similar to the
prohibited design enlisted in Annexure F to the Agreement. The Plaintiff
contends that the impugned INTEGRITI stitching design marks on the jeans
are identical to the prohibited design at Annexure F to the Agreement. The
Plaintiff has set out the comparison at Annexure 2 of its written
10
submissions and states that the designs are identical.
29. The Defendant has contended that the impugned INTEGRITI
stitching design marks used by it are not covered under the Agreement. It
contended that the prohibited design in Annexure F to the Agreement has
four [4] stitches and a slanted orientation, whereas the impugned current
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RASHMI
DABAS
Signing Date:30.05.2026
17:46
CS(COMM) 414/2025 Page 22 of 32
design has two [2] stitches and is centred. It is stated that these distinctions
make the impugned design distinct from the prohibited designs. It is stated
that there is no agreement between the parties that the Defendant cannot
adopt the design which meets at the centre or with respect to the angle and
orientation of the stitches.
30. In rejoinder, the Plaintiff has contended that design no. 2 forming part
of Annexure F to the Agreement itself depicts a design comprising two [2]
stitches. It is further contended that even design no. 1 in Annexure F cannot
be construed as consisting of four [4] independent stitches, as alleged by the
Defendant, but substantially represents a two-stitch formation. The Plaintiff
has contended that the Defendant is, in any event, commercially using and
selling jeans bearing the impugned stitching design in two [2] stitch, three
(3) stitch and four [4] stitch variations, thereby attempting to evade the
obligations undertaken under the Agreement.
31. This Court, in the first instance, has examined design no. 1 at
Annexure F to the Agreement and finds merit in the submission of the
Defendant that the prohibited design therein has four [4] stitch arcs which
meet at the centre. Therefore, this Court finds no merit in the submission of
the Plaintiff that the said image depicts two [2] stitch arcs. This is a prima
facie view since it has been formed on the basis of the images filed on
record, and Plaintiff would be at liberty to produce the actual product during
trial to substantiate its plea that the prohibited design has two stitches. The
Defendant would also be obliged to produce the product seen in design no. 1
at trial.
10
Dated 25.08.2025
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RASHMI
DABAS
Signing Date:30.05.2026
17:46
CS(COMM) 414/2025 Page 23 of 32
32. Next, a perusal of prohibited design no. 2 at Annexure F to the
Agreement shows that it contains two [2] stitch arcs which meet at the
centre.
33. The Plaintiff has placed on record at Annexure 2 of the written
11
submissions the Defendant’s impugned INTEGRITI stitching design marks
in two [2] stitches, three [3] stitches and four [4] stitches. The impugned
INTEGRITI stitching design marks have been juxtaposed with prohibited
design no. 1 and design no. 2 of Annexure F to the Agreement. Upon a
visual comparison, this Court is of the prima facie view that the impugned
INTEGRITI stitching design marks are deceptively similar to the prohibited
designs enlisted in Annexure F to the Agreement. The Defendant has, in the
Settlement Agreement, acknowledged the deceptive similarity of the
prohibited design enlisted in Annexure F of the Agreement and therefore, it
cannot be permitted to adopt any variation of the prohibited designs by
making small changes.
34. This Court finds no merit in the submission of the Defendant that the
said design is not a subject matter of the Settlement Agreement and
Annexure F thereto. This Court finds merit in the submission of the Plaintiff
that the microscopic difference between the two designs is irrelevant and
would fail to register in the mind of the consumer.
35. The Defendant’s registration under the Designs Act 2000, for its two-
stitch impugned design, enlisted at paragraph 34 of the captioned
application, was not relied upon by the Defendant during arguments or in the
written submissions. In any event, the said registration arises from an
application dated 09.09.2021, which was filed after the execution of the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RASHMI
DABAS
Signing Date:30.05.2026
17:46
CS(COMM) 414/2025 Page 24 of 32
Settlement Agreement. In view of this Court’s prima facie finding that the
impugned design is deceptively similar to the prohibited design, the
Defendant cannot claim any enforceable right against the Plaintiff on the
basis of such registration. The prohibited design in image no. 1 at Annexure
F is closely similar to the design of the two-stitch meeting at the centre
represented in this registration. Image no. 1 has a closely similar design in
four stitches. In the opinion of this Court, the difference in the number of
stitches would not make it permissible for the Defendant to use this design
as it is prima facie in violation of the Agreement.
36. The Plaintiff has therefore made out a prima facie case for injuncting
the Defendant from using the impugned INTEGRITI stitching design marks
for the jeans as they are deceptively similar to the prohibited designs
enlisted at Annexure F of the Settlement Agreement.
37. The Defendant has emphasized that there was no agreement between
the parties that the Defendant cannot adopt a design which meets at the
centre of the pocket, nor was there an agreement on the angle or orientation
of the stitches. However, this Court, upon a perusal of the prohibited designs
at Annexure B and Annexure F of the Agreement, finds that a common
thread in each of the prohibited designs was that the arcs met at the centre of
the pocket. In contrast, in the permitted designs at Annexure C, D and E of
the Agreement, the arcs in the design did not meet at the centre of the
pocket.
When this fact is considered, taking into account the Plaintiff’s
registered mark Arcuate Stitching Design Mark, it becomes apparent that the
meeting of the designs at the centre of the pocket was an essential element
11
Also annexed as Schedule II of this order
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RASHMI
DABAS
Signing Date:30.05.2026
17:46
CS(COMM) 414/2025 Page 25 of 32
of the Plaintiff’s design, which the Defendant acknowledged and agreed to
stay clear of. Even otherwise, this Court prima facie finds that the impugned
stitching design mark on KILLER jeans and INTEGRITI jeans are
deceptively similar or near identical to the prohibited designs enlisted in the
Settlement Agreement.
III. Issue pertaining to the impugned LAWMAN stitching design mark
38. The Plaintiff has also sought an injunction qua the impugned
LAWMAN stitching design mark. It is admitted that this design is not the
subject matter of the Settlement Agreement. It is, however, alleged that the
Defendant has subsumed the Plaintiff’s Arcuate Stitching Design Mark in its
entirety and has merely inserted a zig-zag stitching pattern towards the end
of the left arc in the stitching design, right before it intersects with the right
arc in the middle of the pocket. It is stated that this is only a minor variation
and fails to distinguish the impugned LAWMAN stitching design mark from
the Plaintiff’s registered mark.
39. The Defendant contends that it holds a valid trademark registration for
the impugned stitching design mark and the Plaintiff has not preferred any
cancellation against the same. It relies on the fact that this design is not a
subject matter of the Agreement. It contends that this design is not similar to
the Plaintiff’s Arcuate Stitching Design Mark.
40. This Court, on a prima facie comparison of the two marks is unable to
agree with the Plaintiff that the two marks are deceptively similar. This
Court notes that the zig-zag pattern towards the end of the left arc is similar
to the stylised ‘W’ in the Defendant’s brand name device LAWMAN Pg3/
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RASHMI
DABAS
Signing Date:30.05.2026
17:46
CS(COMM) 414/2025 Page 26 of 32
and appears to be an imitation of the same. This
Court also notes that the LAWMAN stitching design marks were applied for
by the Defendant in 2013 and have since been registered. The Plaintiff has
been unable to explain as to how these designs were not made a subject
matter of discussion when the Settlement Agreement was negotiated and
executed between the parties in 2019.
41. This Court is, therefore, not inclined to grant any interim injunction,
at this stage, in respect of the impugned LAWMAN stitching design marks.
However, the Plaintiff shall be at liberty to lead evidence during trial on the
issues of deceptive similarity and likelihood of confusion concerning the
said mark.
42. In view of the material placed on record, this Court is satisfied that the
Plaintiff has established a prima facie case for the grant of interim protection
with respect to the impugned stitching design marks of the Defendant’s
brand KILLER and INTEGRITI. The Plaintiff’s Arcuate Stitching Design
Mark has been in continuous use since 1979 and has also been recognized as
a well-known mark. The Defendant’s adoption of deceptively similar
stitching designs for their brand INTEGRITI and KILLER, despite prior
acknowledgment of the Plaintiff’s proprietary rights, prima facie reflects
dishonest adoption. The Defendants, having expressly undertaken not to use
the impugned stitching marks by entering into the Settlement Agreement
with the Plaintiff, cannot be permitted to continue such use. Consequently,
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RASHMI
DABAS
Signing Date:30.05.2026
17:46
CS(COMM) 414/2025 Page 27 of 32
the balance of convenience lies in favour of the Plaintiff and irreparable
injury would be caused to the Plaintiff if interim relief is denied.
43. In view of the prima facie findings returned hereinabove, an interim
injunction is hereby granted in favour of the Plaintiff and against the
Defendant in terms of prayer Clause (a) of the captioned application,
restraining the Defendant from using the impugned stitching design marks
pertaining to KILLER and INTEGRITI, or any other mark deceptively
similar to the Plaintiff’s Arcuate Stitching Design Mark, during the
pendency of the present proceedings. It is clarified that no injunction has
been granted with respect to the impugned design mark pertaining to
LAWMAN.
44. The Defendant is directed to file, within four [4] weeks, complete and
duly verified books of accounts pertaining to the manufacture, sale,
distribution and turnover of products bearing the impugned stitching design
marks under the brands INTEGRITI and KILLER from the date of the
issuance of the legal cease-and-desist notice on 25.06.2024 and 14.02.2025,
respectively, till the date of this order.
45. The Defendant will, on and from the date of this order, stop
manufacturing and directly selling by itself or through its distributors any
further jeans bearing the impugned stitching design marks under the brands
KILLER and INTEGRITI.
With respect to the existing stock available in the factory or
warehouse of the Defendant and its distributors, no further sale shall be
permissible to its retailers. The Defendant shall, however, file before the
roster Bench, an affidavit within four [4] weeks setting out the details of the
existing stock of the jeans bearing the impugned stitching design marks
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RASHMI
DABAS
Signing Date:30.05.2026
17:46
CS(COMM) 414/2025 Page 28 of 32
available at its factory and warehouse. Separate affidavit, within four (4)
weeks, will be filed for the stocks available, as on date of this order, with the
distributor.
Appropriate directions will be issued by the roster Bench for the
disposal of the said existing stock.
46. The stock which is already available, as on date of this order, with the
retailers will also be furnished by an appropriate affidavit, within four [4]
weeks. This is in reference to the stocks which are in the actual physical
control and custody of the retailer. The retailers shall be permitted to sell
these goods within four months, from today, and not thereafter. The accounts
of the sales of the products by the retailers will be collated and filed by the
Defendant before the roster Bench.
47. With the aforesaid directions, the application stands disposed of.
CS(COMM) 414/2025
48. List before the roaster Bench on 10.07.2026.
MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J
th
29 MAY, 2026/ msh/AJ/AM
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RASHMI
DABAS
Signing Date:30.05.2026
17:46
CS(COMM) 414/2025 Page 29 of 32
SCHEDULE – I
Annexure D and E Defendant’s KILLER
Stitching Design Mark
Annexure G
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RASHMI
DABAS
Signing Date:30.05.2026
17:46
CS(COMM) 414/2025 Page 30 of 32
SCHEDULE – II
Defendant’s INTEGRITI Stitching
Annexure F Design
Design Mark
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RASHMI
DABAS
Signing Date:30.05.2026
17:46
CS(COMM) 414/2025 Page 31 of 32
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RASHMI
DABAS
Signing Date:30.05.2026
17:46
CS(COMM) 414/2025 Page 32 of 32