Even 1.5 Years in Jail Doesn’t Dilute Section 37 NDPS Rigour: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Bail in 710 Kg Poppy Husk Case Stay of Conviction Nullifies Disqualification Under Section 8(3) RP Act: Allahabad High Court Dismisses Quo Warranto Against Rahul Gandhi Custodial Interrogation Necessary to Uncover ₹2 Crore MGNREGA Scam: Kerala High Court Rejects Anticipatory Bail for Vendors in Corruption Case Order 41 Rule 23 CPC | Trial Court Cannot Decide Title Solely on a Vacated Judgment: Himachal Pradesh High Court Strikes By Bar Associations Cannot Stall Justice: Allahabad High Court Holds Office Bearers Liable for Contempt if Revenue Suits Are Delayed Due to Boycotts To Constitute a Service PE, Services Must Be Furnished Within India Through Employees Present in India: Delhi High Court Medical Negligence | State Liable for Loss of Vision in Botched Cataract Surgeries: Gauhati High Court Awards Compensation Waiver of Right Under Section 50 NDPS is Valid Even Without Panch Signatures: Bombay High Court Agricultural Land Is 'Property' Under Hindu Women’s Right to Property Act, 1937: A.P. High Court Tenant Who Pays Rent After Verifying Landlord’s Will Cannot Dispute His Title Under Section 116 Evidence Act: Himachal Pradesh High Court Dismisses Eviction Challenge by HP State Cooperative Bank Clever Drafting Cannot Override Limitation Bar: Gujarat High Court Rejects Suit for Specific Performance Once Divorce by Mutual Consent Is Final, Wife Cannot Pursue Criminal Case for Stridhan Without Reserving Right to Do So: Himachal Pradesh High Court Caste-Based Insults Must Show Intent – Mere Abuse Not Enough for Atrocities Act: Gujarat High Court Upholds Acquittal Failure to Inform Detenu of Right to Represent to Detaining Authority Vitiates NSA Detention: Gauhati High Court Awarding Further Interest On Penal Charges Is Contrary To Fundamental Policy Of Indian Arbitration Law: Bombay High Court

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"]

Latest Legal News