Case Title: Puma SE v. Ashok Kumar
Date of Order: 20th October 2023
Case No.: CS(COMM) 703/2022
Neutral Citation: 2023:DHC:7696
Court: High Court of Delhi
Judge: Justice Prathiba M. Singh
Brief Facts:
The Plaintiff, Puma SE, a well-known German company, sought a permanent injunction against the Defendant, Ashok Kumar, trading as "Kumkum Shoes" in Agra. The Defendant was accused of manufacturing and selling counterfeit products bearing the trademark ‘PUMA’ and the leaping cat device. The Plaintiff had registered its trademark in India since 1977 and claimed that counterfeit products were being sold in Agra, Uttar Pradesh, and online.
Issues Before the Court:
1. Whether the Defendant was infringing the Plaintiff’s registered trademark ‘PUMA’ and the leaping cat device.
2. Whether the Defendant was liable for passing off counterfeit goods as the Plaintiff’s genuine products.
3. Whether the Plaintiff was entitled to damages, costs, and delivery-up of infringing goods.
4. Whether an injunction should be issued restraining the Defendant from further infringement.
Reasoning & Analysis by the Court:
Prima Facie Case & Injunction:
The Court noted that Puma had established its reputation globally and in India.
An ex parte interim injunction was granted on 12th October 2022, preventing the Defendant from manufacturing and selling counterfeit products.
Local Commission’s Report:
A Local Commissioner was appointed, who conducted a raid and seized 156 counterfeit Puma shoes and 15 Puma-branded stickers from the Defendant’s premises.
The report confirmed large-scale manufacturing of counterfeit ‘PUMA’ shoes.
The Defendant failed to file a written statement or contest the claims.
Legal Position & Trademark Violation:
The Court relied on past judgments, reinforcing that a Local Commissioner’s report can be treated as evidence under Order 26 Rule 10(2) CPC.
The Defendant was found to be engaged in deliberate and calculated counterfeiting, which diluted the Plaintiff’s brand.
Assessment of Damages:
Based on the seized stock and estimated sales of 800-1000 pairs of counterfeit shoes per month over two years, the Court estimated the Defendant's illegal profits at approximately ₹18-19 lakhs.
Considering the Defendant’s wilful infringement, the Court awarded ₹10 lakhs as damages and ₹2 lakhs as costs.
Decision of the Court:
1. Permanent Injunction Granted: The Defendant was restrained from manufacturing, selling, or marketing any products under the PUMA trademark or any similar mark.
2. Damages Awarded: ₹10,00,000/- as damages to the Plaintiff.
3. Costs Imposed: ₹2,00,000/- as litigation costs.
4. Seized Goods to be Delivered: The counterfeit goods were ordered to be handed over to Puma’s representatives for destruction.
5. Execution of Decree: If damages and costs were not paid within eight weeks, Puma was allowed to seek execution of the decree.
Conclusion:
The Delhi High Court upheld the rights of Puma SE against counterfeiting and trademark infringement. The case highlights the importance of strict enforcement of trademark laws and the role of Local Commissioners in intellectual property disputes. The judgment serves as a deterrent against counterfeit manufacturing in India.
