Adidas Ag & Anr. vs Green Line Polymer Pvt. Ltd.
2011 Latest Caselaw 645 Del

11
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                     +   CS(OS)No.2411/2009

                           Date of Decision : 3rd February, 2011
%

      ADIDAS AG & ANR.                         ..... Plaintiffs
               Through : Mr. Rakesh Tiku, Mr. Aman
                         Walesha, Mr. Pramod Kumar Singh
                         and Mr. Vijay, Advs.

                         versus

      GREEN LINE POLYMER PVT. LTD.               ..... Defendant
               Through : None.

CORAM :-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA

1.      Whether Reporters of Local papers may
        be allowed to see the Judgment?

2.      To be referred to the Reporter or not?

3.      Whether the judgment should be
        reported in the Digest?


J.R. MIDHA, J. (Oral)

1. The plaintiffs have filed this suit for mandatory and

permanent injunction, passing off, infringement of trademark

and copyright, unfair competition, damages and rendition of

accounts in respect of their trademark "adidas", and logos "3

Stripes", "Trefoil" and "3 bars".

2. Plaintiff No.1 is a company registered under the German

laws and is engaged in manufacture, sale and distribution of

sports wear shoes, apparel and accessories across the world.

Plaintiff No.2 is the wholly owned subsidiary of plaintiff No.1

and is engaged in sale of the above products. Plaintiff No.1 is

the owner of trademark "adidas" and logos "3 Stripes",

"Trefoil" and "3 bars" which are registered under the Trade

Marks Act in India. Plaintiff No.2 is the owner of trademark "3

bars" which is also registered under the Trade Marks Act in

India.

3. The plaintiff's brand adidas is the world's second largest

sports brand and largest in Europe. The plaintiff's products are

available in more than 160 countries worldwide including India.

The plaintiff started business in India in 1989 and the plaintiffs

claim its trademarks to be well known in India. The details of

the registration of the plaintiff's trademarks are given in para 9

of the plaint. The plaintiff has spent huge amount on

advertising and sales promotion of its product.

4. The plaintiffs received a communication dated 6th

October, 2009 from the office of the Commissioner of Customs,

ICD, Tughlaqabad, New Delhi stating that the customs

department while examining the imported consignment of

footwear from China imported by the defendant has found

footwear bearing different brands including trademark "adidas"

whereupon the plaintiff appeared before the Commissioner of

Customs and learnt that the defendant had imported

counterfeit shoes bearing the infringing trademark "adidas"

and logos "3 Stripes", "Trefoil" and "3 bars". The plaintiff,

therefore, made a representation to the department to seize

counterfeit goods. Upon inquiries thereafter, the plaintiff came

to know that the defendant is the manufacturer of the

counterfeit shoes with infringing trademark of the plaintiff.

During the hearing, the plaintiff also learnt that the

consignment imported by the defendant contained counterfeit

products of other brands also. The Additional Commissioner

(Special Intelligence and Investigation Branch) ordered the

confiscation of counterfeit shoes and destruction whereof. The

Additional Commissioner, however, ordered the plaintiff to bear

the cost of destruction. The plaintiff thereafter made further

investigation and found that the counterfeit products made by

the defendant were readily available in Karol Bagh and Sarojini

Nagar Markets in Delhi.

5. Vide ex-parte ad-interim order dated 16th December,

2009, the defendant was restrained from marketing, selling or

in any way dealing with goods bearing trademark "abibas",

"addiox", "BAOJI" with or without logos "3 Stripes", "Trefoil"

and "3 bars" or any other trademark or logo deceptively similar

to trademark "adidas" and logos "3 Stripes", "Trefoil" and "3

bars". It was also directed to preserve the goods confiscated

by the custom authorities vide order

C.No.VIII/ICD/10/TKD/SIIB/INV/116/09 imported from China,

which defendant got released later on.

6. The defendant was duly served with the summons in the

suit and he filed the written statement. On 8th September,

2010, the defendant conceded before this court that the

offending goods were dispatched from China and were seized

by the Customs department who have imposed a penalty on

the defendant. On 8th September, 2010 and 20th October,

2010, the defendant further conceded that he was prepared to

suffer a decree in terms of prayers (a) to (e) provided the

plaintiffs give up the claim for rendition of accounts, etc. The

plaintiff agreed to give up the claim of rendition of accounts

and damages which is recorded in order dated 20th October,

2010.

7. In terms of the order dated 20th October, 2010, the

defendant gave an undertaking dated 15th November, 2010 to

the effect that the decree may be passed against him in terms

of prayers (a) to (e). The defendant also appeared before the

learned Joint Registrar on 8th December, 2010 and admitted his

signatures on the undertaking.

8. There is no appearance on behalf of the defendant today.

However, in view of the admissions made by the defendant

recorded in the orders dated 8th September, 2010 and 20th

October, 2010 and the undertaking given by the defendant on

15th November, 2010, the plaintiff is entitled to the decree of

the suit under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure in

respect of prayers (a) to (e). By the aforesaid admissions, the

defendant has admitted the plaintiffs entire case on merits

including the plaintiffs registered trademarks "adidas" and

logos "3 Stripes", "Trefoil" and "3 bars" under the Trademarks

Act and the infringement thereof by the defendant. The

admissions of the defendant are sufficient for passing a decree

in favour of the plaintiff. Learned counsel for the plaintiff does

not press prayers (f) to (j).

9. The undertaking of the defendant is hereby accepted and

the suit is decreed in respect of prayers (a) to (e) in favour of

the plaintiff and against the defendant under Order XII Rule 6

of the Code of Civil Procedure. The decree sheet be drawn up

in terms of this judgment.

J.R. MIDHA, J FEBRUARY 03, 2011 aj