PUMA SE Vs. Himanshu Sharma:July 9, 2025:CS(COMM) 383/2021:2025:DHC:5585:Hon'ble Mr. Justice Saurabh Banerjee
The plaintiff, PUMA SE, a globally reputed company engaged in manufacturing and selling sports apparel and accessories, sought a permanent injunction, damages, and other reliefs against the defendant, Himanshu Sharma, for trademark infringement and passing off. PUMA SE has used its trademarks, including the word "PUMA" and its logo, since 1948, with registrations in India since 1983 under Classes 18 and 25 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
The plaintiff's trademarks were declared well-known by the Trade Mark Registry in India on February 19, 2024. The defendant was involved in selling counterfeit shoes bearing PUMA's trademarks through the website "www.thesheskart.com." In July 2021, PUMA received customer complaints about substandard shoes purchased from the defendant's website, and investigations confirmed the products were counterfeit, infringing PUMA's intellectual property rights.
The court issued an interim order on August 18, 2021, restraining the defendant from using PUMA's trademarks and directing the suspension of the defendant's domain name and associated URLs. The defendant failed to appear or file a written statement despite being served summons by publication on January 7, 2024, leading to the closure of their right to file a written statement on February 6, 2025. PUMA moved an application under Order XIIIA read with Order VIII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure for a summary judgment due to the defendant's non-participation.
The core dispute centered on the defendant's unauthorized use of PUMA's registered and well-known trademarks on counterfeit products, sold through the same trade channels and targeting the same customers as PUMA. The plaintiff provided evidence, including an Analysis Report dated August 12, 2021, from its Brand Protection Manager, confirming the counterfeit nature of the defendant's products. The defendant's products were found to be blatant copies of PUMA's, replicating essential trademark elements without variation.
The court found that the defendant's failure to appear or contest PUMA's claims resulted in the plaintiff's averments and documents being deemed admitted. The court noted the defendant's mala fide intent to exploit PUMA's goodwill, as evidenced by their adoption of identical trademarks and operation in the same market. Citing precedents like Koninklijke Philips N.V. v. Amazestore and Jawed Ansari v. Louis Vuitton Malleiter, the court emphasized that counterfeiting is a serious commercial malpractice that deceives consumers and undermines established brands. The defendant's willful evasion of proceedings further supported a stringent approach to damages.
The court decreed the suit in favor of PUMA SE, granting the reliefs sought in prayer paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d), and (g) of the plaint. The defendant was directed to pay actual costs of Rs. 5,90,000 and damages of Rs. 2,10,000, totaling Rs. 8,00,000, within ninety days, with an interest of 6% per annum if unpaid within that period. The suit was disposed of, and a decree sheet was ordered to be drawn up.
Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi
Disclaimer: This information report is intended for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
