Trademark Office around the world, which has gained immense international recognition and cross-border reputation in India. The defendants, who sell women's shoes and accessories and also operate through social media platforms, used the plaintiff's trademark to sell their women's shoes, which was confirmed upon further investigation. Plaintiff sought the permanent injunction, restraining Defendants from directly or indirectly manufacturing, selling, offering for sale, or dealing in the same products bearing Plaintiff's trademark that is identical or deceptively similar to Plaintiff's trademark. Say no to plagiarism. Get Custom Essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”?Get Original Essay The plaintiff argued that its trademark, i.e., a shoe with a red sole, clearly identifies the product of the plaintiff and distinguishes it from the property of any other person and has thus become the signature of the plaintiff. They also presented evidence to support its claim that its mark is distinctive and well-known. The Delhi High Court, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, restrained the defendants from using the plaintiff's disputed mark. The Court ruling ex parte observed that since the plaintiff's mark enjoys a high reputation and cross-border reputation, it can be considered as a well-known mark. The Court also referred to a plethora of decisions in order to decide whether or not to award punitive damages to the defendants. And relying on the decision of the same court in the case of Hindustan Unilever Ltd v. Reckitt Benckiser India Ltd, the court concluded that it was not reasonable to award punitive damages in intellectual property matters. Rather by taking into consideration 3 categories of compensation in Rooks v. Barnard and 5 principles in Cassel & Co. v. Broome, exemplary or punitive damages must be awarded. Relying on the above reasons and considering the turnover of the defendant, the court awards compensation of 2.08 Lakhs to two groups of defendants in general or compensatory damages plus an additional 8.63 Lakhs in legal costs. Well-known marks, as defined in the Trademark Act, mean a mark which has become such for the significant segment of the public who uses such goods or receives such services. Initially, there was no such provision for the protection of well-known marks and so reliance was placed on the common law remedy of passing off a fraudulent mark. The first case that emerged in this regard was Daimler Benz v. Hybo Hindustan, wherein this Court held that the plaintiff's mark was well known due to its cross-border reputation and goodwill. On the same land was Whirlpool Co. & Anr. VNR Dongre has decided. Later, following the demands of the General Assembly on Trade and Tariffs (GATT), new laws for the protection of well-known marks and related matters were enacted. With regard to the newly promulgated provisions, the Delhi High Court ruled in the case of Indian Shaving Products Ltd v Gift Pack & Anr, taking into consideration the factors determining the reputation of the brand, namely, duration, extent and geographical area of ​​any brand. use of the brand. For similar reasons, this Court decided the case of Manico Ltd v. Madhu Gupta. The next aspect considered concerned the award of punitive damages. Confirming the decision of.