Recently, the Delhi High Court granted a permanent injunction against the defendant, restraining it from infringing upon the well-known trademark “PUMA” and its associated logos. The Court, dealing with a case of trademark infringement and counterfeiting, held that the defendant was engaged in manufacturing and selling counterfeit products bearing the “PUMA” trademark. Notably, the Court observed that counterfeiting is a “commercial evil” that erodes brand value and deceives consumers.
The plaintiff, PUMA SE, one of the world’s leading sports brands, filed a suit seeking a permanent injunction to restrain the defendant from infringing its trademarks, “PUMA” and its associated logos. The plaintiff contended that the “PUMA” trademark has been in continuous use since 1948 and was declared a well-known trademark in India on December 30, 2019. The defendant was found to be engaged in the manufacture and sale of counterfeit footwear bearing the “PUMA” mark and logos without authorisation. The plaintiff discovered in October 2022 that a large quantity of counterfeit “PUMA” branded shoes was being manufactured and sold in bulk in East Delhi. Investigations led to the identification of the defendant’s manufacturing unit, where infringing goods were being produced and supplied.
The plaintiff argued that the defendant had deliberately copied essential features of the “PUMA” trademarks to mislead consumers and benefit from the brand's goodwill. It was contended that such unauthorised use amounted to trademark infringement under Sections 29(1) and 29(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The plaintiff also sought damages, rendition of accounts, and delivery up of counterfeit goods.
The Court noted that an ex-parte ad-interim injunction had already been granted on October 18, 2022, restraining the defendant from selling or manufacturing products under the “PUMA” trademark. Despite being impleaded as a party, the defendant failed to file a written statement within the statutory period and was consequently proceeded against ex-parte. Referring to the inspection report of the Court-appointed Local Commissioner, the Court found overwhelming evidence that the defendant was engaged in counterfeiting. The report detailed the seizure of counterfeit goods bearing the “PUMA” trademarks and other well-known brands like Adidas and Nike. The Court observed, “Counterfeiting is an extremely serious matter, the ramifications of which extend beyond the confines of a small shop of a petty counterfeiter. It erodes brand value, deceives consumers, and has serious repercussions on the national economy. A counterfeiter abandons any right to equitable consideration by a court functioning under the rule of law".
In view of the evidence and lack of defense from the defendant, the Court granted a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from using the “PUMA” trademarks. The Court also ordered the seizure and destruction of the infringing goods and directed the defendant to pay damages to the plaintiff.
Picture Source :
