Madam Justice Gupta, departing from the Delhi High Court's decision in Time Incorporation v. Lokesh Srivastava, rejected punitive damages in Christian Louboutin SAS v. MR. Pawan Kumar & Ors. In this case, the appellant, with a trademark of distinctive character, has been recognized by the Trademark Office worldwide, which has gained immense international recognition and cross-border reputation in India. The defendants, who are engaged in the sale of women's shoes and accessories, and also carry out the business through social media platforms, used the plaintiff's brand to sell their women's shoes, which was confirmed through further investigation. The plaintiff prayed for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from directly or indirectly manufacturing, selling, offering for sale, or dealing in the same goods bearing the plaintiff's trademark which is identical or deceptively similar to the plaintiff's trademark. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay The plaintiff argued that their trademark, i.e., a shoe with a red sole, clearly identifies the plaintiff's product and distinguishes it from every other person's goods and thus became the plaintiff's signature. They also highlighted evidence to support its claim that its trademark 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 disputed trademark of the plaintiff. The Court, deciding ex parte, observed that since the appellant's trademark enjoys substantial goodwill and cross-border notoriety, it can be considered a well-known trademark. The Court also referred to a variety of cases in deciding whether or not to award punitive damages against the defendants. And based on the same Court's decision in Hindustan Unilever Ltd v Reckitt Benckiser India Ltd, the Court concluded that it is not reasonable to award punitive damages in intellectual property matters. Rather, considering 3 categories of damages in Rooks v. Barnard and 5 principles in Cassel & Co. v. Broome, exemplary or punitive damages must be awarded. Based on the above reasons and the defendant's turnover, the Court awards damages of 2.08 lakhs against two sets of defendants in general or compensatory damages plus another 8.63 lakhs in legal fees, court costs and associated expenses. Trademarks, as defined by Trademark Law, mean a mark that has become a mark to the substantial segment of the public who uses such goods or receives such services. Initially there was no provision regarding the protection of well-known trade marks and therefore reliance was placed on the common law remedy of abuse. The first case to emerge in this regard was Daimler Benz v. Hybo Hindustan, where this Court held that the plaintiff's brand was well known due to cross-border reputation and goodwill. Whirlpool Co. & Anr was located on the same land. VNR Dongre has decided. Subsequently, following the requirements of the General Assembly on Trade and Tariffs (GATT), a series of new laws were enacted to deal with well-known trademarks and related matters. With regard to the new provisions issued, the Delhi High Court decided the case Indian Shaving Products Ltd v. Gift Pack & Anr, taking into consideration the factors determining the brand's notoriety, i.e. duration, extension and geographical area of ​​possible use of the brand. On similar grounds, this Court decided the Manico Ltd case.