Jammu & Kashmir High Court Directs Construction of Overhead Bridge or Underpass on Ring Road for Safe Passage of Villagers    |     Minor Injuries No Bar for Framing Charges Under Section 307 IPC if Intent to Kill is Present: Supreme Court    |     Prosecution's Case Full of Glaring Doubts:  Supreme Court Overturns Conviction in Abduction and Murder Case    |     Allegations of Dowry Demand in FIR Found Vague and Driven by Civil Property Dispute: Supreme Court Quashes FIR and Chargesheet in Dowry-Cruelty Case    |     Local Police Failed to Perform its Duties: SC Directs New Investigating Officer in Property Dispute    |     Paternity Established Through SSC and Appointment Order, Legal Obligation to Maintain Unmarried Daughter: Andhra Pradesh High Court    |     No Appeal Shall Be Heard Without Disputed Tax Deposit: Bombay High Court Upholds Constitutionality of Section 96(b) of the Cantonment Act, 2006    |     Parties Must Choose Peace Over Litigation: Calcutta High Court Denies FIR Quashing in Family Dispute, Highlights Mediation Option    |     Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes Recruitment of 1091 Assistant Professors and 67 Librarians In Punjab Due to Procedural Flaws    |     Res Judicata Bars Reconsideration of Adoption Validity in Second Round of Litigation: Jammu & Kashmir High Court    |     Candidates who use a party’s symbol must be deemed members of that party: Kerala High Court Upholds Disqualification for Defection    |     Inconsistencies in Eyewitness Accounts and Lack of Forensic Certainty Lead to Acquittal: Himachal Pradesh High Court Acquits Accused in Murder Case    |     Delhi High Court Quashes Reassessment Notices Under Section 148 Due to Invalid Sanction by JCIT    |     Summons Under PMLA for Further Investigation Does Not Infringe Right Against Self-Incrimination: Telangana HC    |     Termination During Probation Is Lawful if Concealment of Criminal Case Is Proven: Allahabad HC    |     Disproportionate Fine Cannot Be Imposed for Recovery of 1 Liter of Country-made Liquor: Patna High Court    |     Prosecution failed to prove identity of remains and establish murder beyond reasonable doubt: Orissa High Court Acquit Ex-Husband    |     Despite 12 Injuries on the Victim, No Intention to Kill Found: Rajasthan High Court Upholds Conviction Under Section 304 Part-II IPC    |     Governor’s sanction suffers from non-application of mind: Karnataka High Court Stays Governor’s Sanction for Investigation Against CM Siddaramaiah    |    

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