The Delhi High Court’s decision in Hermes International v. Macky Lifestyle Pvt. Ltd. (2025) represents a major development in Indian trademark jurisprudence, particularly from the perspective of protection granted to luxury brands renowned worldwide. The present dispute arose out of a trademark infringement suit filed by Hermes International, along with its Indian subsidiary, against Macky Lifestyle Private Limited. Justice Tejas Karia, who formally declared the three-dimensional shape mark of the iconic “Birkin” bag, decreed that the word-mark “HERMES”, along with the stylised “HERMES carriage-and-horse” logo, is a well-known mark in India. The ruling plays a historic role in acknowledging non-conventional marks such as product shapes and further addresses the growing concern towards digital misuse of luxury brand imagery. The said ruling underlines India’s position as a jurisdiction sensitive to cross-border brand reputation and contemporary modes of infringement.

Hermes International (“the plaintiff”), the legendary French luxury house, approached the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in instituting proceedings against Macky Lifestyle Pvt. Ltd. (“the Defendant”), alleging trademark infringement and passing off of its registered as well as unregistered marks. The plaintiff asserted rights over multiple marks, including word marks, its stylised logos, and especially, the three-dimensional shape of its Birkin bag.

According to the plaintiff, the defendants were engaged in using, advertising, manufacturing, offering for sale and selling products identical or confusingly/deceptively similar to the Birkin bag on digital platforms, thereby misrepresenting an association with the plaintiff in an attempt to unfairly ride upon the goodwill attached to the brand. Such conduct, as argued, amounted to trademark infringement, passing off, dilution, misappropriation, and unfair competition.

During the course of the proceedings, the Court continually sought disclosures from the defendants regarding their image sources, suppliers, and details of any commercial activity involving the disputed products. One of the defendants filed an affidavit claiming that their business had ceased operations due to it becoming unremunerative. Furthermore, it was denied that the defendants were ever manufacturing or selling any such conflicting products, asserting that the images relied on were mere downloads from the internet and used solely as reference images.  

This clash raised various valuable legal issues, including:

• Whether the defendants were engaged in manufacturing or selling products identical or deceptively similar to the Birkin bag or Hermes marks;

• Whether Hermes marks, particularly the Birkin bag’s three-dimensional shape mark and the stylized logos, satisfied the statutory requirements to be declared well-known trademarks in India.

The Court had two significant issues before it. Firstly, the Court was required to determine whether the defendants were liable for infringing the trademarks of the plaintiff. The defendants, through their written statement, contended that no revenue was generated through their business activities since its commencement in 2021, which led to the permanent closure of its operations. Additionally, they also asserted that they did not purchase any infringing material to sell identical or deceptively similar products as those of the plaintiff’s and the images that the plaintiff had procured were purely used as “reference images” to manufacture bags without any dishonest intention.

The second issue that was to be decided by the Court was whether the Plaintiff’s marks should be granted the status of “well-known marks” within the meaning of Section 11(6) of the Act.

The Court assessed each factor in relation to Section 11(6) of the Act and held that:

• The plaintiff had stores in Mumbai and Delhi, wherein their three-dimensional shape marks were visibly displayed. A number of magazines had recognised the Plaintiff’s products with the subject marks. It was clear from the above-mentioned facts that the Plaintiff’s marks were known and recognised amongst the relevant public as iterated under Section 11(6)(i).

• The ‘Birkin’ bag was adopted in the year 1984 and the mark ‘HERMES’ has been used since 1937. It was also noted that the subject marks enjoyed long-standing reputation and continuous commercial presence, thereby, satisfying the condition laid down in Section 11(6)(ii).

• Added to that, the Court observed that the subject marks have been consistently advertised and promoted across jurisdictions. The products of the Plaintiff were published in well-recognised magazines, further substantiating the requirements under Section 11(6)(iii).

• The plaintiff had filed the application for the registration of the “Birkin” bag along with the subject marks in India on July 29, 2008. Additionally, the plaintiff had registrations in over 40 countries for the ‘Birkin’ bag and multiple international registrations for other subject marks. This satisfied the condition laid down in Section 11(6)(iv).

• The plaintiff also submitted that the “Birkin” bag had been declared as well-known by the French Federation of Leather and Travel Case makers Leather Bands. Furthermore, the mark in question had been recognised in the INTA Bulletin dated April 15, 2008. These submissions clearly aligned with the requirements under Section 11(6)(v).  Resultantly, the Court held that Hermes satisfied all statutory factors under Section 11(6) of the Act and therefore, should be afforded recognition as a well-known trademark under Section 2(1)(zg) of the Act. Hence, the Hon’ble Court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff, thereby formally declaring the 3D shape of the Birkin bag, the “Hermes” word mark, and its stylised logos as well-known trademarks in India.

The verdict in Hermes International v. Macky Lifestyle Pvt. Ltd. is more than a routine trademark clash; it reflects the progressing maturity of intellectual property law in India.

By lawfully recognising the three-dimensional shape of the Birkin bag as a well-known mark and thereby addressing misuse over digital platforms, even in the absence of physical counterfeits, the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi has set a meaningful precedent for all future brand protection and enforcement disputes in India.

In addition to protecting the rights of one of the most renowned luxury brands in the world, the Court's formal recognition of the 3D shape of the Birkin bag and all Hermes-related marks has established a model that enhances India's position as a respectful and protective jurisdiction for intellectual property rights worldwide.

About the authors: Amit K. Panigrahi is a Partner, Sahil Arora is a Principal Associate and Ishikaa Seth is an Associate at Kochhar & Co.

Shivangi Taneja, Intern, 5th year - Amity Law School, also contributed to this article.

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author(s). The opinions presented do not necessarily reflect the views of Bar & Bench.

If you would like your Deals, Columns, Press Releases to be published on Bar & Bench, please fill in the form available here.