The Delhi High Court has issued a permanent injunction against a company with the same name as the German sports and apparel giant Adidas AG, which deals in various items, including textiles. This ruling came in response to a trademark infringement lawsuit filed by Adidas AG.
Justice Sanjeev Narula, presiding over the case, awarded Adidas AG Rs 14.22 lakh in damages. This amount includes Rs 3 lakh in nominal damages and Rs 11.22 lakh covering the legal fees incurred by Adidas over the past 13 years while pursuing the trademark infringement action.
The defendants, marketing products under the "ADIDAS" brand, argued that their trademark adoption was "bonafide and honest." They claimed that using a mark identical to Adidas's was rooted in personal affection. According to the defendants, Keshav Tulsiani, partner/director of Adidas Weaving Mills, Adidas Textile Industries, and Adidas Merchandise Private Limited, deeply admired his elder sister, addressed as 'ADI' in the Sindhi community. This admiration led to him being referred to as her devotee (or "Das" in Sindhi), resulting in the creation of the name "ADIDAS" to symbolize this familial devotion.
The defendants further contended that the plaint should be dismissed due to a lack of territorial jurisdiction, as they do not reside or conduct business in Delhi. They also argued that the suit was filed with undue delay and that they have exclusively used the mark in capital letters, while Adidas AG uses it in lowercase.
However, after considering the plaintiff's argument that the defendants operate through their fully owned subsidiary, ADIDAS India Marketing Pvt. Ltd., based in Satbari, New Delhi, the court ruled that it has territorial jurisdiction over the case.
Regarding the delay, the court determined that the burden of proof rested on the defendants, who failed to provide evidence to support their claim of using the mark since 1987.
In its ruling in favour of Adidas AG, the court found that the defendant's use of the same mark, along with the similarities between the goods—textiles and clothing—created a substantial probability of confusion. The court emphasized that a word like "Adidas," which was formed and has no inherent linguistic meaning, is deemed to have a high degree of distinctiveness and is thus afforded a wide ambit of protection under trademark law.
