By Lucy Rana and Huda Jafri
Introduction
In a judgment of great significance to the protection of non-traditional trademarks in India, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court has formally declared the three-dimensional shape of the Hermès ‘Birkin’ bag, along with the HERMÈS word mark and the maison’s stylised logos, as “well-known trademarks” under the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
This landmark ruling arose out of the infringement suit Hermès International & Anr. v. Macky Lifestyle Private Limited & Anr.[1], filed by Hermès International and its Indian subsidiary against Macky Lifestyle Private Limited. The dispute centred on allegations of the unauthorized use and imitation of the world-famous Birkin bag shape and associated Hermès marks.
The judgment not only decrees the suit in favour of Hermès but also elevates the Birkin shape and Hermès marks to the highest tier of legal protection under Indian trademark law, marking a pivotal development in the recognition and enforcement of non-traditional and luxury brand trademarks in India.
Factual Background
The Plaintiffs ‘Hermès International (France) and Hermès India’, approached the Hon’ble Court alleging that the Defendants were:
• manufacturing,
• using,
• advertising,
• offering for sale, and
• selling
products identical to Hermès’ goods bearing the three-dimensional Birkin shape mark,
The word mark 
, and the stylised logos 
The Plaintiffs sought relief for trademark infringement, copyright infringement, passing off, dilution, tarnishment, unfair competition, damages, delivery up, and recognition of the Subject Marks as well-known.
The Defendants denied ever manufacturing or selling any such products, asserting that the images relied on were merely downloaded from the internet and used as “reference images”.
Procedural Developments
- Court’s Observations and Directions (Order dated April 15, 2025)
During the hearings, the Court noted that certain critical disclosures were missing from the Defendants’ filings. Although the Defendants had previously submitted a reply on 14 March 2022 and an affidavit on 28 February 2025, the following information, central to verifying their involvement, was absent:- The identity of the vendor from whom the alleged infringing materials were procured.
- The details of the supplier who allegedly gave information to the Defendants, as mentioned in the Plaintiffs’ documents.
- Clarification regarding a single transaction on IndiaMart, referred to in the Defendants’ earlier filings.
The Court observed that none of these points had been addressed, despite repeated opportunities. Accordingly, the Defendants were granted an additional two weeks to file an affidavit responding specifically to these three outstanding issues.
- Affidavit Filed by Defendant No. 2 (June 18, 2025)
In compliance with the Court’s direction, Defendant No. 2 filed an affidavit on 18 June 2025. This affidavit marked a turning point in the proceedings, as it clarified the Defendants’ position in categorical terms. The Defendant stated that:- The business had started only in June 2021 and had not generated any revenue prior to its closure;
- The company, Macky Lifestyle Pvt. Ltd., had since ceased operations entirely;
- The Defendants had never manufactured or sold any products identical or deceptively similar to Hermès’ Birkin bag or other Hermès products;
- The images relied upon earlier were merely downloaded from the internet for reference purposes and did not depict actual goods made or sold by them;
- As no infringing products were ever made, no vendor existed who could have supplied materials for such goods;
- Earlier bank statements and transaction records already filed demonstrated the absence of any dealings in infringing products.
The Court accepted the affidavit.
- Plaintiffs’ Acceptance of the Affidavit
Following the filing of this affidavit, counsel for Hermès informed the Court that the Plaintiffs were willing to accept the Defendants’ statements as true, particularly:- that no infringing goods were ever manufactured or sold,
- that the business had been closed, and
- that the images used were only reference images taken from the internet.
With these clarifications on record, the Plaintiffs submitted that the suit may be decreed in terms of prayers (a) to (d). They further pressed for prayer (e) seeking declaration of the Hermès marks as well-known trademarks.
The Defendants raised no objection to this request.
Statutory Factors and Evidence Presented by Hermès
- Knowledge or Recognition Among the Relevant Public
Hermès demonstrated:
• presence of stores in Mumbai and Delhi,
• display of products bearing the Birkin 3D shape mark,
• coverage in major publications, including The Economic Times and Harper’s Bazaar,
• revenue details reflected in 2020 activity reports. - Duration, Extent, and Geographical Area of Use
Evidence included:
• the creation of the Birkin design in 1984,
• adoption of the Hermès trade name and word mark derived from its founder in 1837,
• adoption of the stylised “duc-carriage-with-horse” logo in 1938. - Duration, Extent, and Geographical Area of Promotion
Hermès submitted material showing:
• extensive promotional activities across markets,
• high advertising expenditure,
• global publicity of the Birkin bag through magazines, brand channels, and exhibitions. - Duration and Geographical Area of Trademark Registrations
The Hon’ble Court noted that:
• the Birkin 3D shape mark was filed for registration in India in 2008,
• Hermès holds registrations in over 40 countries (including Canada, Hong Kong, Japan),
• registrations also exist for the “HERMES” word mark and stylised marks in India and globally. - Record of Enforcement
Hermès established:
• a consistent history of enforcing its marks before Indian and foreign courts,
• previous injunctions obtained against infringers,
• recognition of the Birkin shape as well-known by the French Federation of Leather and Travel Case Makers,
• mention of the marks’ reputation in the INTA Bulletin (15 April 2008).
Court’s Analysis and Findings
Upon reviewing submissions and documentary evidence, the Hon’ble Court concluded that the Hermès Subject Marks:
- have extensive recognition among the relevant public,
- enjoy long-standing reputation and continuous commercial presence,
- have been consistently advertised and promoted across jurisdictions,
- have been vigilantly enforced, contributing to their distinctiveness.
The Hon’ble Court held that Hermès satisfied all five statutory factors under Section 11(6), read with Section 11(7), and therefore the marks merited recognition as well-known trademarks under Section 2(1)(zg) of the Act.
The Hon’ble Delhi High Court decreed the suit in favour of Hermès:
- granting relief in terms of prayers (a) to (e) of the plaint,
- formally declaring the Birkin 3D shape mark, the HERMES word mark, and stylised logos as well-known trademarks,
- disposing of pending applications,
- making no order as to costs.
Conclusion
This ruling marks a milestone in the protection of luxury brands and non-traditional marks in India. By recognising the Birkin bag’s iconic shape and associated Hermès marks as well-known, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court of has fortified their protection against dilution, imitation, and misappropriation.
The case underscores the importance of sustained global presence, consistent enforcement, and brand vigilance, factors that collectively cemented Hermès’ position within Indian trademark jurisprudence.
[1] CS(COMM) 716/2021 & I.A. 17569/2021,