In a groundbreaking legal ruling, the Delhi High Court has handed a resounding victory to PUMA SE, the renowned German sportswear giant, in a case involving counterfeit products. The judgment, delivered by Justice Prathiba M. Singh, comes as a resounding victory for PUMA and a stark warning to counterfeiters.
Brief Facts:
The case revolves around PUMA SE, a globally recognized German sportswear brand, seeking legal redress against Ashok Kumar, trading as "Kumkum Shoes" in Agra, Uttar Pradesh. PUMA accused the defendant of manufacturing and selling counterfeit products bearing the 'PUMA' mark and the iconic 'leaping cat device.' PUMA, with a history dating back to 1948, has a strong presence in the sporting industry and enjoys endorsements from notable celebrities such as Usain Bolt, Virat Kohli, and Sara Ali Khan.
PUMA asserted its rights, alleging trademark infringement, against the defendant after discovering the presence of counterfeit 'PUMA' products in the market. An interim injunction was granted in favor of PUMA as a response to the alleged infringement. A Local Commissioner was appointed to investigate the matter further. Importantly, the defendant chose not to file a written statement or appear in court, resulting in the case proceeding ex parte.
Contentions of the Parties:
PUMA claimed that it had been using the 'PUMA' mark since 1948 in Germany and had registered it in several countries, including India. The plaintiff argued that the defendant was involved in manufacturing and selling counterfeit 'PUMA' products, jeopardizing PUMA's reputation, brand equity, and consumer interests. PUMA emphasized that it had endorsements from well-known celebrities, and the defendant's infringement could dilute the brand's goodwill.
The plaintiff requested an injunction against the defendant to stop the manufacturing and sale of products bearing the 'PUMA' mark. PUMA sought damages and legal costs, highlighting the defendant's deliberate and calculated infringement.
The defendant, Ashok Kumar, did not file a written statement or appear in court, choosing to stay away from the legal proceedings. The defendant did not challenge the report submitted by the Local Commissioner, which detailed the large-scale manufacturing of counterfeit 'PUMA' products on the defendant's premises. The defendant's absence from the proceedings implied a lack of defense against PUMA's allegations of trademark infringement and counterfeiting.
Observations by the Court:
A Local Commissioner visited the defendant's premises and conducted a seizure, revealing that the defendant was engaged in large-scale manufacturing of counterfeit 'PUMA' products. The report of the Local Commissioner detailed the quantities of seized items, including 156 pairs of shoes and 15 PUMA stickers. The images of the counterfeit products seized provided compelling evidence of trademark infringement.
Justice Prathiba M. Singh cited Order XXVI Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, which allows the court to treat the Local Commissioner's report as evidence in the suit. In this case, the defendant did not challenge the report, further supporting the court's reliance on it.
Decision of the Court:
In light of the evidence and the defendant's deliberate infringement, the court granted an injunction against the defendant, restraining them from manufacturing and selling products bearing the 'PUMA' mark or any similar marks. The court also ordered the defendant to deliver the seized goods to the plaintiff for destruction.
Case Title: PUMA SE vs ASHOK KUMAR
Coram: Justice Prathiba M. Singh
Case No.: CS(COMM) 703/2022 and I.A. 16559/2022
Advocates of the Petitioners: Mr. Ranjan Narula and Mr. Shashi P. Ojha, Advs.
Advocates of the Respondent: NA
Read Judgement @LatestLaws.com:
Share this Document :Picture Source :
