The Delhi High Court issued an interim order against Ashok Kumar Trading & Ors. for violating the trademark rights of the plaintiff, New Balance Athletics Inc.
Additionally, the defendants were instructed to block the sale of goods by any other means and to comply with Order XXXIX Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 within two days of passing the order.
In the instant case, trademark infringement was alleged. According to the plaintiffs, the defendants were claiming to sell "first copy" shoes. In addition to selling counterfeits of the plaintiff's footwear, the website also offers and sells goods from other well-known brands such as Adidas, Louis Vuitton, Nike, etc. at highly discounted prices.
Since 1906, the plaintiffs have been designing, manufacturing, marketing, and selling footwear in the United States, using the marks "NEW BALANCE", "NB Device Mark" and "N Device Mark".
The plaintiff also contends that they first used the letter "N" on footwear in 1970 and that the use of "NB" as a trade mark on footwear also began in the 1970s. In India, the "New Balance" and "N Device" marks were first used on footwear in 1986, while the "NB" mark was first used on footwear in 1987.
Furthermore, the plaintiffs provided details on their net revenue from 2013 to 2020, as well as their current operational social media accounts. The plaintiff also claims that it has subsidiary companies in India called "New Balance IT Services India Private Limited (incorporated in 2007)" and "New Balance India Private Limited (incorporated on January 17, 2022)".
It has also entered into a franchise agreement with a major Indian party, and its stores are located throughout India.
The plaintiff also claims that it has obtained registration for various marks in India, the details of which are duly attached.
Following a review of the plaintiff's documents and arguments, the court determined that the balance of convenience also favours the plaintiff over the defendant, resulting in irreparable losses to both the plaintiff and the consumers if the defendant is not restrained from operating their web portal by an ad-interim order.
Read Order @LatestLaws.com:
Picture Source :