Trademark Infringement: Delhi High Court Directs Manufacturer Of Counterfeit Products To Pay ₹11 Lakh To Puma

Observing that the manufacturer engaged in a blatant act of counterfeiting, Justice Mini Pushkarna directed the manufacturer of counterfeit products to pay Rs. 11 lakh in damages and costs to Puma.

Puma submitted that it is one of the world's largest sports brands engaged in designing, developing and marketing footwear, apparel and accessories under the marks PUMA and logo since the year 1948.

It stated that the earliest registrations for its marks and logo in India were in 1977 and that it has been using the marks since the 1980s. It stated that the Puma trademark has been declared as a well-known trademark in India on 30 December 2019.

Puma stated that in October 2022, it discovered large quantities of counterfeit PUMA shoes being locally manufactured, supplied and sold in bulk quantities at several shops in East Delhi. Upon enquiry, it identified the defendant's manufacturing unit. Puma thus filed the present suit seeking permanent injunction against the defendant from infringing upon its Puma trademark, Puma logo and Form Strip logo.

It submitted that the defendant has copied each and every essential feature of its marks in order to ride upon its goodwill and create misrepresentation among the public.

On 18 October 2022, the Court had granted ex parte ad interim injunction, restraining the defendant from advertising, manufacturing or selling any products bearing Puma's mark, Puma logo or the Form Strip logo.

The Court proceeded with a summary judgment as no written statement was filed by the defendant within stipulated time.

The Court noted that the Puma trademark, Puma logo and Form Strip logo has been declared as a well-known trademark by the Trade Marks Registry.

Purusing the Local Commissioner's report, the Court noted that defendant was manufacturing counterfeit products of Puma as well as other well-known brands. It observed “The counterfeit products found are spats, shoe soles, shoes and screen film bearing the infringing marks. Moreover, a metal mould for the logos is found, wherein the marks of various other known brands, i.e. Adidas, Nike, Lee Cooper etc. are imprinted, showing that the operation of the defendant was not just limited to creating counterfeit products of the plaintiff, rather for known marks of other brands as well.”

The Court noted that counterfeit products are identical to such a degree in a manner of appearance that it causes confusion and deception in the eyes of the public.

It referred to Louis Vuitton Malletier Versus Capital General Store and Others (2023 LiveLaw (Del) 122), where the Delhi High Court highlighted the seriousness of counterfeiting and remarked that counterfeiting is a commercial evil, which erodes brand value, amounts to duplicity with the trusting consumer, and in the long run has serious repercussions on the fabric of the national economy.

Here, it noted that the defendant infringed Puma's trademarks by “engaging in the blatant act of counterfeiting.” It also noted that well-known marks require a higher degree of protection as they are highly susceptible to piracy.

In view of the above, the Court was of the view that Puma was entitled to actual costs as well as damages. It thus awarded Rs. 9 lakh costs along with Rs. 2 lakh damages to Puma.

Case title: Puma SE vs. Mahesh Kumar

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 301