-
by Admin
07 January 2026 4:15 PM
Trademark Counterfeiting Is Identity Theft, Not Competition—Silence Is Not Innocence - Delhi High Court delivered a strong rebuke to trademark piracy in latest judgement and granting a permanent injunction and awarding ₹34,41,240 in damages against a local entity found guilty of counterfeiting Bridgestone’s trademark by manufacturing rubber tubes under the deceptively similar mark “BRIMESTONE.”
Justice Amit Bansal, while passing an ex parte decree, held: “A counterfeiter can never be allowed to carry on illegal activities. Cheating can never be condoned by the court unless the accused is punished.”
“BRIMESTONE Is Not Coincidence—It Is Craft. The Substitution of ‘DG’ With ‘M’ Is a Calculated Copy, Not Creative License”
The Court held that the infringing mark “BRIMESTONE” bore clear visual and phonetic resemblance to “BRIDGESTONE,” and that the logo, packaging, and device mark were all deliberately crafted to deceive customers and ride on the goodwill of the plaintiff’s globally reputed brand.
Justice Bansal observed: “The mark ‘BRIMESTONE’ is nearly identical to the plaintiff’s mark ‘BRIDGESTONE’. The adoption is not accidental—it is designed to confuse.”
“Defendant Vanished After Two Appearances—Litigation Cannot Be Converted into a Game of Hide and Seek”
The defendant appeared in court twice but ceased participation thereafter, despite an interim injunction already having been granted. The Court treated this conduct as willful evasion.
In no uncertain terms, the Bench declared: “A party who chooses not to participate must suffer the consequences. Trademark infringement cannot be washed away by silence. In fact, silence becomes an admission when the proof is so visible.”
“5,850 Counterfeit Tubes, 77,600 Fake Stickers, and a Seized Dye—No Paper Trail, No Defence, No Innocence”
The Local Commissioner’s raid revealed the scale of counterfeiting: thousands of infringing products and packaging material, operated entirely through cash sales with no invoices. Not a single record of legitimate sourcing or authorisation was produced.
The Court recorded: “The profit has been earned by exploiting a deceptively similar trademark without any authorization. It is clear that the defendant was running a counterfeit business in full scale.”
“Counterfeit Profits Cannot Be Pocketed—No Books of Account? No Excuse. Damages Must Follow”
Though the defendant failed to furnish accounts, the Court invoked the doctrine from Cartier International and Koninklijke Philips, holding that an evasive defendant should not benefit from its own silence.
Justice Bansal applied a 20% profit estimate on seized goods, extrapolated over 1.5 years, and concluded: “A plaintiff cannot be made to suffer because the defendant conceals his accounts. Where the court is satisfied about the wrong, damages must be just and deterrent.”
Accordingly, the Court decreed ₹34,41,240 as compensatory damages, with costs to be assessed separately by the Taxation Officer.
“Trademark Law Protects Not Just Words But Trust—And Trust Cannot Be Allowed to Be Counterfeited”
The Court concluded by affirming the deeper principle at play—that trademark law safeguards not just logos but public confidence, and infringers cannot be permitted to erode decades of brand equity.
Justice Bansal closed the ruling by underscoring: “Trademark counterfeiting is not innovation—it is identity theft in commercial attire. The court must not tolerate it, especially when the proof is irrefutable and the defendant is indifferent.”
This judgment is a powerful affirmation of judicial intolerance for trademark piracy, especially in cases involving deliberate counterfeiting. By awarding full damages despite an ex parte setting, the Delhi High Court sends a clear message: evading court process does not erase accountability.
As the Court aptly stated: “Evasion is not a defence. Silence is not shield. And infringement, when deliberate, must be met with more than a warning—it must be met with consequence.”
Date of Decision: 25 March 2025
