factual background:
puma se filed a suit against mahesh kumar for trademark infringement, unfair trade practices, and passing off. puma alleged that the defendant was engaged in manufacturing and selling counterfeit shoes using its well-known trademarks, including "puma" and its logo, without authorization. a local commissioner appointed by the court confirmed that counterfeit goods were being sold at the defendant’s premises, along with counterfeit products of other reputed brands like adidas and nike.
procedural background:
the court initially issued an ex-parte ad-interim injunction against the defendant on october 18, 2022, restraining them from manufacturing and selling counterfeit products. the defendant failed to file a written statement within the statutory period, leading to their right to defend being closed on september 18, 2024. the court proceeded with the case ex-parte and considered the plaintiff’s application for summary judgment.
provisions of law referred and their context:
the case primarily relied on the trade marks act, 1999, particularly sections 29(1) and 29(2), which prohibit trademark infringement. the plaintiff also invoked order xiii-a and order viii rule 10 of the code of civil procedure, 1908, to seek a summary judgment, arguing that the defendant had no real prospect of defending the claim. the court also considered section 151 cpc for inherent powers.
judgments referred with complete citation and context:
the court relied on louis vuitton malletier v. capital general store & ors., 2023 scc online del 613, which emphasized that counterfeiting is a serious commercial offense that erodes brand value and deceives consumers. the court also referred to jawed ansari v. louis vuitton malletier & ors.,
manu/deor/136880/2023, which upheld stringent action against counterfeiters. another key case cited was hamdard national foundation (india) v. sadar laboratories pvt. ltd., 2022 scc online del 4523, reinforcing that well-known trademarks require higher protection from infringement.
reasoning of the court:
the court found that the defendant was blatantly manufacturing and selling counterfeit goods using the plaintiff’s trademarks. the local commissioner’s report confirmed the large-scale counterfeiting operation, which also involved other well-known brands. since the defendant failed to defend the case, the court held that there was no genuine dispute requiring trial. it noted that counterfeit goods create consumer deception and harm brand reputation. given the strong evidence against the defendant, the court ruled that summary judgment was appropriate.
decision:
the court decreed the suit in favor of puma se and awarded actual litigation costs of ₹9,00,000, along with damages of ₹2,00,000, payable within three months. the defendant was permanently restrained from manufacturing or selling counterfeit products bearing puma’s trademarks. the court also directed the registry to draw up a decree in favor of the plaintiff.
case details:
case title: puma se vs. mahesh kumar
date of order: february 12, 2025
case number: cs(comm) 725/2022
neutral citation: 2025:dhc:1552
court name: high court of delhi
hon'ble judge: justice mini pushkarna
