Harley-Davidson LLC V. RONTEX: Summary Judgment Granted For Trademark And Copyright Infringement

Posted On - 23 May, 2025 • By - King Stubb & Kasiva

The Delhi High Court (DHC) has passed a summary judgment in favour of Harley-Davidson LLC against RONTEX in a judicial proceeding relating to trademark and copyright infringement. The case, CS(COMM) 609/2023, along with an application for summary judgment (I.A. 42209/2024), was filed by Harley-Davidson, claiming that RONTEX was illegally making use of a logo greatly resembling their registered ‘Eagle logo/device mark’ on its footwear, thus violating Harley-Davidson’s intellectual property rights and indulging in passing off.

Facts

Harley-Davidson LLC, which is an internationally renowned company incorporated in 1903, has extensive trademark registrations across the globe, including India, for its brand name and distinctive logos like the ‘HARLEY-DAVIDSON’ wordmark, the ‘Bar & Shield’ logo, and the ‘Eagle logo/device mark’, in notable use since the 1930s.

These proceedings were initiated after Harley-Davidson found RONTEX producing, selling, and offering footwear online with a logo discovered to be deceptively identical to Harley-Davidson’s registered logo. A court-appointed local commissioner’s visit to RONTEX’s premises verified the existence of 640 pairs of shoes with the infringing mark. Later, the DHC granted an interim injunction against RONTEX in September 2023, restraining them from trading in the infringing goods. Despite repeated opportunities and court orders, RONTEX did not provide a written statement to defend against the allegations, which resulted in the strike-out of their right to put in a defence and which prompted Harley-Davidson to apply for a summary judgment.

Issues

  1. Whether RONTEX’s adoption of the disputed logo represented an infringement of Harley-Davidson’s registered trademarks?
  2. Whether RONTEX’s conduct represented passing off their footwear as being connected with or coming from Harley-Davidson?
  3. Whether Harley-Davidson was entitled to a summary judgment under the provisions of Order XIII-A and Order VIII Rule 10 of the CPC, considering RONTEX’s non-filing of a written statement and opposing the suit?
  4. What relief, including a permanent injunction, destruction of infringing goods, damages, and costs, is to be awarded to Harley-Davidson?

Analysis

The analysis by the DHC was centred on the persistent failure of RONTEX to participate in the legal proceedings. The DHC presumed that this lack of participation suggested an acknowledgement of the plaintiff’s claims and evidence, specifically because there was no written denial statement and any affidavit rejecting the validity of the plaintiff’s documents, according to the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules 2018.

An important part of the Court’s rationale included a visual comparison of the parties’ logos. The DHC observed an apparent and unmistakable similarity between the registered ‘Eagle logo/device mark’ of Harley-Davidson and the logo of RONTEX, observing that RONTEX had reproduced prominent visual elements of the plaintiff’s registered mark. This copying, along with sales of the same or similar goods (shoes), was held to amount to both passing off and trademark infringement, as it would likely cause confusion among consumers regarding the origin or association of the goods. In the light of the situation of default on the part of RONTEX in presenting a defence, the DHC invoked the summary judgment provisions of Order XIII-A and Order VIII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, following the principles established in judicial precedents such as Su-Kam Power Systems Ltd. v. Kunwer Sachdev.[1]

The DHC also put a strong accent on the aim of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, to dispose of commercial disputes within a reasonable time. Considering RONTEX’s adamant non-responsiveness, the DHC held there was no viable chance of their being able to defend the suits, thereby warranting summary disposal of the action.

Conclusion

The Delhi High Court accordingly held in Harley-Davidson LLC’s favour and granted the following reliefs:

  • A permanent injunction order prohibiting RONTEX from infringing Harley-Davidson’s trademarks and copyright, representing their goods as the plaintiff’s goods, and employing the disputed logo or any other deceptively similar mark.
  • An order for the destruction of infringing goods, i.e., the 640 pairs of infringing shoes impounded by the court-appointed local commissioner.
  • An order for an award of INR 5,00,000/- as damages and legal expenses payable by RONTEX to Harley-Davidson. Such an award was premised on the undisputed determination by the local commissioner and on the principle of law of ‘rough and ready calculation’ in the assessment of damages in this context.

This ruling highlights the Delhi High Court’s dedication to upholding intellectual property rights and its readiness to use summary judgment processes to effectively resolve cases in which the defendant does not produce a substantive legal defensea. Harley-Davidson’s successful recourse to this legal remedy is a strong deterrent to trademark and copyright infringement, supporting the importance of brand protection within the commercial environment.

[1] 2019 SCC OnLine Del 10764.