Plaintiff and Defendant manufacture and deal in, inter alia, high-end luxury jewellery. Where a website permits purchase of goods or services, for consideration, every Court having jurisdiction over places from which, by access to website, commercial transactions could be effected and concluded would, prima facie, have jurisdiction to deal with a case of trademark infringement. Plaintiff alleges infringement by Defendant.

Plaintiff has been manufacturing and marketing its “SERPENTI” line of products from a point of time which is anterior to that from which Defendant has been marketing its “SERPENTINE” line. The nature of goods in respect of which “SERPENTINE” mark is used by Defendant is same as nature of goods in respect of which Plaintiff uses marks “BVLGARI SERPENTI”, “SERPENTI HYPNOTIC”, “SERPENTI INCANTATI” and “SERPENTI SEDUTTORI”. The goods would cater to same class of consumers.

There is clear phonetic similarity between expressions “SERPENTI” and “SERPENTINE” and mere slight phonetic distinction in manner in which concluding syllable of these two words is intoned cannot detract from similarity between two. “SERPENTI” has no known etymological connotation in English or in any other language and, therefore, has to be regarded as fanciful and coined by Plaintiff. All factors, seen in conjunction, in my view, do make out a prima facie case of infringement, by Defendant. Resultantly, restrain from using trademark “SERPENTINE”.

– Hon’ble Justice C. Hari Shankar of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi, Bulgari Spa v. Notandas Gems Private Limited, [I.A. 16751/2021 in CS (COMM) 658/2021].