Second Appeal is Not a Forum for Rehearing or Reassessment of Evidence: Andhra Pradesh High Court Dismisses Partition Suit Appeal Failure of Justice Must Be Proved, Not Assumed: Calcutta High Court Upholds Murder Conviction Despite Charge Framing Lapse Bail is the Rule, Refusal is an Exception – Right to Liberty Cannot Be Ignored: Delhi High Court Grants Bail to Ivory Coast National in NDPS Case Courts Must Adopt a Justice-Oriented Approach in Matrimonial Cases: Gauhati High Court Condones Delay in Family Court Appeal FIR Quashing | Breath Analyzer Test Alone Cannot Prove Alcohol Consumption: Patna High Court Quashes FIR Under Bihar Prohibition Law Unregistered Writing Cannot Confer Ownership: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Second Appeal in Partition Dispute Allegations of Stalking and Criminal Intimidation Must Be Tested at Trial: Gujarat High Court Refuses to Quash FIR Bombay High Court Quashes Criminal Case Against Nestlé Officials Over Maggi Noodles Controversy No Shortcuts in NDPS Investigations – J&K High Court Rebukes Casual Approach of Investigating Officers Sessions Court Cannot Order Re-Investigation: Allahabad High Court Quashes Direction Against Jaypee Hospital If Official Witnesses Are Reliable, Independent Corroboration Is Not a Must:  Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds NDPS Conviction No Service Tax Can Be Levied on Sale of Lottery Tickets: Supreme Court Rules That Lottery Distributors Are Not Agents Courts Cannot Be Silent Spectators When Justice Is Denied Due to Procedural Errors:  Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Recall of Bail Rejection Order Section 27 of the Evidence Act Requires Independent Corroboration—Mere Claims by Police Are Not Enough: Supreme Court on Flawed Investigation Confession to Police Is No Confession in Law: Supreme Court Acquits Man, Citing Inadmissibility of Statements Made in Custody Mere 'Last Seen Together' Is Not Enough for Conviction Unless It Forms a Complete Chain of Circumstantial Evidence: Supreme Court Sets Aside Life Sentence in 16-Year-Old Girl’s Murder Failure to Explain Wife’s Death Strengthens Guilt Under Section 106 of Evidence Act" – Supreme Court Restores Conviction in Murder Case Child Witness Testimony Cannot Be Discarded Solely on Grounds of Tutoring: Supreme Court Restores Conviction in Murder Case

Injunction Granted In favour of PUMA Trademark Infringement And Imposed Rs 10 Lakh Damages: Necessary To Deter: Delhi High Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant legal victory for PUMA SE, the Delhi High Court has issued a landmark judgment in a trademark infringement case against a defendant trading as "Kumkum Shoes" in Agra. Justice Prathiba M. Singh delivered the verdict on October 20, 2023, following a comprehensive examination of the evidence and facts presented in the case.

The High Court's judgment is characterized by strong language emphasizing the seriousness of trademark infringement and the need for appropriate legal consequences. Justice Singh stated, "The Defendant has deliberately and with complete knowledge of the fact that 'PUMA' brand and 'leaping cat device' cannot be used, imitated the same and earned the profits forcing the Plaintiff to file the present suit."

The case revolved around the Plaintiff, PUMA SE, a German sportswear and footwear company with a long history of using the mark 'PUMA.' The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendant was manufacturing and selling counterfeit products bearing the 'PUMA' mark and logo in Uttar Pradesh, Delhi, and Haryana.

The judgment included key observations:

1.Trademark Recognition: The Court acknowledged the global recognition of the 'PUMA' brand, stating, "The 'PUMA' brand is the umbrella brand of the Plaintiff and is endorsed by a large number of internationally well-known celebrities."

2.Quantum of Infringement: The judgment detailed the substantial quantities of counterfeit 'PUMA' products seized from the Defendant's premises, estimating that the Defendant had been manufacturing and selling approximately 800 to 1000 pairs of shoes per month.

3.Damages Award: The Court awarded damages of Rs. 10,00,000/- to the Plaintiff and imposed costs of Rs. 2,00,000/- on the Defendant. Justice Singh stressed that these damages were necessary to deter further infringement, stating, "The Defendant falls within the categories against which damages ought to be awarded by the Court."

4.Injunction: A decree of injunction was issued against the Defendant, permanently restraining them from manufacturing, selling, or marketing products bearing the 'PUMA' mark and logo.

The judgment emphasized the seriousness of trademark infringement, especially when committed knowingly and with an intention to profit from another company's goodwill and reputation. It sends a strong message about the importance of protecting intellectual property rights and the consequences of trademark violations.

The Defendant has been ordered to hand over the seized counterfeit products to the Plaintiff's representative, and the damages and costs must be paid within eight weeks. The legal community is hailing this judgment as a significant precedent in trademark infringement cases, reaffirming the importance of brand protection and consequences for infringing parties.

Date of Decision: 20 October  2023

PUMA SE  vs ASHOK KUMAR

    ??            

[gview file="https://lawyerenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/20-Oct-2023-Puma-Vs-Ashok-Kumar.pdf"]

Similar News