Recently, in a decisive affirmation of trademark enforcement against counterfeiting in the digital marketplace, the Delhi High Court has granted a summary judgment in favour of global sportswear giant PUMA SE in a suit for trademark infringement, passing off, damages, and related reliefs. The Court held that the defendant, operating the e-commerce site www.theshoeskart.com, was “clearly guilty of counterfeiting” and had adopted the plaintiff’s trademarks in toto without a single variation.
The suit was filed under the Commercial Courts Act read with provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, after PUMA received a customer complaint in July 2021 regarding substandard footwear falsely bearing its registered marks. Upon investigation, it was revealed that the products were counterfeit, sold by the defendant through the impugned website. PUMA alleged that the products bore not only the "PUMA" mark but also the distinctive form strip and logo, amounting to a clear case of infringement and passing off.
Despite service of summons through publication, the defendant failed to enter an appearance or file a written statement. Consequently, PUMA sought a summary judgment under Order XIIIA read with Order VIII Rule 10 CPC. The Court noted that “the defendant has neither been appearing nor represented since 12.02.2024 and same is the position today,” and that all pleadings and documents stood “deemed to be admitted.”
Examining the visual and documentary record, the Court observed, “The defendant’s product bearing the impugned mark is/are a blatant copy/ counterfeit/ rip-off/ replica of the plaintiff’s product bearing its registered trademark”. It further held, “There can be no bona fide and/or non-intentional reason(s) for the said defendant to have adopted or commenced using either of the aforesaid trademarks of the plaintiff.”
Citing the defendant’s silence and evasive conduct, the Court concluded there was “an element of ‘bad faith’” in the adoption of the mark and that the attempt was clearly intended “to ride upon the goodwill and reputation of the plaintiff.”
The Court referred to precedents including Koninklijke Philips N.V. & Anr. Vs. Amazestore & Ors., Jawed Ansari vs. Louis Vuitton Malletier & Ors., and Cartier International A.G. & Ors. vs. Gaurav Bhatia & Ors., reiterating the need for a stringent approach in counterfeiting cases,“Counterfeiting constitutes a grave and egregious offence and the implications constitute a commercial malpractice that undermines the value of established brands and deceives the unsuspecting consumers.”
The Court decreed the suit in favour of PUMA, granting permanent injunction, damages, and ancillary reliefs as prayed. It awarded actual costs amounting to ₹5,90,000 and damages of ₹2,10,000, directing the defendant to pay the total sum of ₹8,00,000 within 90 days. The Court further held that in the event of non-payment within the stipulated period, PUMA would be entitled to interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the said amount until realisation.
Finally, the Court concluded, “No rank counterfeiter like the defendant, who maintains a stoic silence, can be allowed to go scoot free, and the plaintiff, who is a registered proprietor of the trademarks, has to be given due protection and benefit for the same against such defendant.”
The Registry was directed to prepare a decree sheet in terms of the judgment.
Case Title: Puma Se Vs. Himanshu Sharma
Case No.: CS(COMM) 383/2021, I.A. 10356/2021-Stay, I.A. 12633/2025- by plaintiff O-XIIIA r/w O VIII R-10 CPC
Coram: Justice Saurabh Banerjee
Advocate for Plaintiff: Advocates Ranjan Narula, Shakti Priyam Nair and Parth Bajaj
