PUMA SE v. Mahesh Kumar – Trademark Infringement and Counterfeiting
Background of the Case
Hon’ble Justice Mini Pushkarna of the Delhi High Court by way of a landmark judgment decided in favour of PUMA SE in the trademark infringement and counterfeiting case against Mahesh Kumar. The case highlights the judiciary’s resolve to protect famous trademarks and crack down on counterfeiting operations. Since its founding in 1948, PUMA has grown into one of the world’s leading suppliers of athletic and casual footwear, apparel, and accessories, and it took legal action against Mahesh Kumar after finding he was making and selling fake PUMA shoes.
PUMA, in this matter, was represented by advocates Ranjan Narula, Shakti Priyan Nair, and Parth Bajaj, and sought a permanent injunction against the defendants for their alleged unauthorized usage of PUMA’s “PUMA” logo and Form strip logo. On November 26, 2016, a Local Commissioner, appointed by a court, visited the site of the defendant in northeast Delhi and found huge quantities of counterfeit PUMA goods, and machines used for the manufacturing of counterfeiting products of other brands such as Adidas and Nike.
PUMA contended that its trademarks were famous and protected under various jurisdictions including India. It pointed out that fake products mislead consumers, damage brand reputation and generate financial losses. The plaintiff cites case law, as in Louis Vuitton Malletier v. Capital General Store and Jawed Ansari v. Louis Vuitton Malletier, reiterating that counterfeiting is no small matter. On the other hand, Mahesh Kumar neither filed a written statement nor appeared, and an ex-parte decree was passed only based on the evidence led by PUMA. The ruling strengthens India’s hardline approach to shielding intellectual property, which means criminals will be subject to severe punishment under the law.
Court’s Observations and Judgment
Delhi High Court — Justice Mini Pushkarna, ruled in favour of PUMA and also noted that decisive action by the legal system is vital in the fight against counterfeiting and trademark infringement. The court noted that – as in the case of PUMA ‘s mark – famous marks should have heightened protection under trademark laws against their unauthorized use and exploitation. It highlighted the harmful effects of counterfeiting, such as the detriment to brand value, consumer trust, and lawful competition in the marketplace. Quoting Sections 29(1) and 29(2) of the Trademarks Act, 1999, the court reiterated that the use of identical or deceptively similar marks without consent is illegal and misleads the public. Also, it relied heavily on the Local Commissioner vi and K, who reported that the defendant was involved in active counterfeiting operations, which gave PUMA a stronger case.
The court found there was enough evidence to indicate the wrongdoings, at the same time referring the case to the relevant legal precedents, thus resulting in a permanent injunction to stop Mahesh Kumar from engaging in business with counterfeit PUMA products. It was further directed that the defendant shall pay Rs. 9,00,000/- as actual costs towards litigation and Local Commissioner fees along with Rs. 2,00,000/- as damages to PUMA SE. The total amount was to be paid to the amount within three months of the date of the judgment. Such a ruling upholds the significance of trademark protection in India and acts as a robust legal precedent against counterfeiting. It also serves notice to counterfeiters that the judiciary would not protect counterfeit goods and would take strict measures to safeguard market integrity and consumer confidence.
Full Judgment – https://indiankanoon.org/doc/198959844/