Registrar Has No Power To Cancel Registered Sale Deeds: Madras High Court Reaffirms Civil Court’s Exclusive Jurisdiction MP High Court Refuses to Quash FIR Against Principal of Sacred Heart Convent High School in Forced Conversion Case Employees Of Registered Societies Cannot Claim Article 311 Protection: Delhi High Court Clarifies Limits Of Constitutional Safeguards In Private Employment Maintenance Cannot Be Doubled Without Cogent Reasons, Wife's Education And Earning Capacity Relevant Factors: Gujarat High Court A Foreign Award Must First Be "Recognised" Before It Becomes A Decree: Bombay High Court A Registered Will Does Not Become Genuine Merely Because It Is Registered: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects Suspicious Testament Compensation Under Railways Act Requires Proof of Bona Fide Passenger – Mere GRP Entry and Medical Records Cannot Establish ‘Untoward Incident’: Delhi High Court Tenancy Rights Cannot Be Bequeathed By Will: Himachal Pradesh High Court Declares Mutation Based On Tenant’s Will Void Preventive Detention Cannot Be Based On Mere Apprehension of Bail: Delhi High Court Quashes PITNDPS Detention Order Probate Court Alone Has Exclusive Jurisdiction To Decide Validity Of Will – Probate Petition Cannot Be Rejected Merely Because A Civil Suit Is Pending: Allahabad High Court PwD Candidates Cannot Be Denied Appointment After Selection; Authorities Must Accommodate Them In Suitable Posts: Supreme Court Directs SSC And CAG To Appoint Candidates With Disabilities When Registered Partition Deed Exists, Plea Of Prior Oral Partition Cannot Override It:  Madras High Court Dismisses Second Appeal Municipal Bodies Cannot Demand Character Verification Of Residents: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Surveillance Condition In Building Sanction State Cannot Exploit Contractual Workers For Perennial Work: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Pay Parity To PUNBUS Drivers And Conductors Police Inputs Cannot Create New Building Laws: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Security-Based Conditions Near Nabanna 'Raising A Child As Daughter Does Not Make Her An Adopted Child': Punjab & Haryana High Court Once Leave Under Section 80(2) CPC Is Granted, Prior Notice to Government Is Not Mandatory: Orissa High Court Restores Trial Court Decree State Cannot Use Article 226 To Evade Compliance With Court Orders: Gauhati High Court Dismisses Union’s Petition With Costs ED Officers Accused Of Assault By ₹23-Crore Scam Accused – FIR Survives But Probe Shifted To CBI: Jharkhand High Court High Courts Should Not Interfere In Academic Integrity Proceedings At Preliminary Stage: Kerala High Court Power Of Attorney Holder With Personal Knowledge Can Depose In Cheque Bounce Cases: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Acquittal Agreement Cannot Dissolve Hindu Marriage, But Can Prove Mutual Separation”: J&K & Ladakh High Court Denies Maintenance

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