Delhi High Court: A suit was filed by Puma SE (plaintiff) seeking permanent injunction restraining the defendant from infringing its trademarks, along with reliefs for unfair competition, rendition of accounts, damages, and delivery up of the infringing goods. Mini Pushkarna, J., decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff, granting a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from manufacturing, selling, or dealing in counterfeit Puma-branded products.
The plaintiff is a globally recognized sports brand engaged in designing, developing, and marketing footwear, apparel, and accessories under its registered trademarks, including “PUMA” and its associated logos. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant was engaged in the business of stocking, selling, and supplying counterfeit products bearing the plaintiff’s trademarks without authorization. The plaintiff contended that its trademarks have been registered in India since 1977, and its products have been available in the Indian market since the 1980s.
The plaintiff’s brand was declared a well-known trademark by the Trademarks Registry on 30-12-2019. The plaintiff discovered large quantities of counterfeit Puma-branded shoes being sold in East Delhi in October 2022 and traced them to a manufacturing unit run by the defendant. The defendant was found to be manufacturing and distributing fake products bearing the plaintiff’s trademarks, thereby misleading the public and harming Puma SE’s brand reputation. Following the discovery of counterfeiting activities, the plaintiff initiated legal proceedings seeking relief against the defendant’s unlawful use of its trademarks.
The Court had initially granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction on 18-10-2022, restraining the defendant from manufacturing, selling, or offering counterfeit products bearing the plaintiff’s trademarks. Despite directions, the defendant failed to file a written statement within the statutory period, leading to the court closing his right to file a response. Consequently, the defendant proceeded against ex-parte on 09-12-2024.
The plaintiff then moved an application for summary judgment under Order XIIIA read with Order VIII Rule 10 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), arguing that the defendant had no real prospect of defending the claims.
A local commissioner was appointed by the Court to inspect the defendant’s premises, and the report revealed large-scale counterfeiting activities. The report documented the presence of counterfeit Puma-branded shoes and logos, along with manufacturing equipment used for imitation purposes. The plaintiff emphasized that the defendant had engaged in counterfeiting not just of Puma products but also of other well-known brands, including Adidas and Nike, thereby proving his intent to deceive consumers.
The Court analyzed the evidence presented, including the Local Commissioner’s Report, which confirmed the large-scale counterfeiting activities at the defendant’s premises. It was observed that the defendant was producing and selling counterfeit goods that were identical in appearance to Puma’s original products, which could cause confusion among consumers.
The Court relied on the ruling in Louis Vuitton Malletier v. Capital General Store, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 613 which emphasized the severe impact of counterfeiting on brand value and consumer trust. It reiterated that counterfeiting is a “commercial evil” that requires stringent action. Additionally, the Court reiterated the principle that counterfeiting should be dealt with firmly to prevent brand dilution.
The Court noted that the defendant had not filed any defense, and the plaintiff’s claims remained uncontested. Since the plaintiff had placed sufficient evidence on record, the Court held that no purpose would be served in requiring further evidence, thereby allowing the summary judgment application.
The Court ruled in favor of the plaintiff and decreed the suit, granting a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from manufacturing, selling, or dealing in counterfeit Puma-branded products. The Court held that the defendant’s activities amounted to trademark infringement and passing off, causing harm to the plaintiff’s goodwill and reputation.
Additionally, the Court awarded the plaintiff actual litigation costs amounting to Rs. 9,00,000/-, including Rs. 1,00,000/- towards the Local Commissioner’s fee and Rs. 8,00,000/- towards legal expenses. The Court also imposed damages of Rs. 2,00,000/- on the defendant as a deterrent against counterfeiting activities.
[PUMA SE v. Mahesh Kumar, CS(COMM) 725/2022, decided on 12-02-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
Mr. Ranjan Narula, Mr. Shakti Priyan Nair and Mr. Parth Bajaj, Advocates for plaintiff
None for defendants