PUMA's Claw on Counterfeiters

Vrinda Harmilapi
6 days ago
4 min read

Introduction

In the case of Puma SE v. Mahesh Kumar[1], heard before the Delhi High Court, the Plaintiff, Puma SE, filed a suit against the Defendant for unlawfully manufacturing and selling counterfeit goods bearing its well-known “PUMA” trademarks. The Defendant's illegal activities were uncovered after a court-appointed inspection revealed counterfeit products, including shoes and molds, bearing the Plaintiff’s marks as well as other brands such as Adidas and Nike. Citing established precedents on the severity of trademark infringement, the Court highlighted the harm caused to brand reputation and consumer trust by such acts. With the Defendant failing to file a defense, the Court granted a summary judgment in favor of the Plaintiff, issuing a permanent injunction, awarding damages, and ordering the Defendant to cease all infringing activities.

Procedural History

Initially, a John Doe order was issued against the Defendant, restraining them from manufacturing, selling, or offering for sale counterfeit goods bearing the Plaintiff’s “PUMA” trademarks. On March 11, 2024, the Defendant was formally impleaded and directed to file a written statement. However, upon failing to do so within the required time frame, the Defendant’s right to file a response was forfeited. Consequently, the Court proceeded with the case ex-parte against the Defendant on December 9, 2024.[2]

Background and Facts

The Plaintiff, Puma SE, a globally recognized sports brand, has been engaged in the design, development, and marketing of footwear, apparel, and accessories under the well-known marks "PUMA" and its associated logos since 1948. The Plaintiff’s trademarks, including "PUMA" and its logo, are registered in various jurisdictions, including India, where the first registration occurred in 1948 and 1977 respectively. The Plaintiff's products are available in over 120 countries worldwide, with a long-standing presence in India since the 1980s. These products have been extensively advertised through various media outlets and celebrity endorsements. On 30th December 2019, the Plaintiff’s trademark, “PUMA” was officially declared “well-known” in India, and this recognition was reaffirmed on 19th February 2024. The Defendant, a business entity engaged in the unlawful sale of counterfeit goods, was found manufacturing and selling shoes bearing the Plaintiff’s "PUMA" marks without authorization.

The Plaintiff sought a permanent injunction to prevent the Defendant from infringing upon the Plaintiff’s trademarks, "PUMA" logo, and Form Strip logo, and for remedies including damages, rendition of accounts, and delivery of counterfeit goods. The Plaintiff discovered large quantities of counterfeit "PUMA" branded shoes being sold in East Delhi, tracing them to the Defendant’s manufacturing unit.

On 18th October 2022, a Local Commissioner was appointed by the Court to inspect the Defendant’s premises. The Local Commissioner’s report documented the discovery of counterfeit products bearing the Plaintiff’s well-known “PUMA” marks and those of other well-known brands, including Adidas and Nike. The counterfeit goods included spats, shoe soles, and shoes. Additionally, a metal mould bearing the Plaintiff’s logo was found, further corroborating the Defendant’s counterfeiting activities.

Analysis

The Court referred to the precedent of Louis Vuitton Malletier v. Capital General Store and Others[3], emphasizing that counterfeiting is a severe and egregious form of Trademark infringement that erodes brand value, misleads consumers, and damages the national economy. The Court highlighted that the Defendant’s actions amounted to "first-degree" infringement, resulting in confusion and deception among the public, and causing harm to the Plaintiff’s reputation and goodwill.

The Court reiterated that counterfeiting represents the most blatant form of passing off, which directly misrepresents the origin of goods and undermines the distinctiveness of the Plaintiff's marks. Furthermore, the Plaintiff’s marks, having been declared well-known, enjoy a higher degree of protection. The Defendant’s act of copying the Plaintiff’s marks in a manner that is likely to confuse consumers was deemed to be an infringement under Sections 29(1) and 29(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.

Decision

The Court concluded that the Plaintiff, being the prior adopter, user, and registered proprietor of the Trademarks in question, is entitled to protection under the Trade Marks Act. The Defendant’s use of the Plaintiff’s well-known marks on counterfeit goods constitutes infringement and passing off. Given that the Defendant failed to file a defense and the right to file a written statement was closed, the Court found no prospect for the Defendant to successfully defend the claims. Consequently, the Court issued a summary judgment in favor of the Plaintiff, granting a permanent injunction, damages, and other reliefs sought by the Plaintiff.

The suit was decreed in favor of the Plaintiff, and the Defendant was ordered to cease the infringing activities immediately.

Conclusion

This judgment serves as a strong reminder of the legal protections afforded to well-known trademarks, especially against the growing menace of counterfeiting. The decision reinforces the notion that well-known trademarks warrant heightened protection due to their significant goodwill and susceptibility to piracy. By granting summary judgment, the Court expedited justice, underscoring that counterfeiting cases, where evidence is clear, should not be delayed.

References: