The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Puma SE in a recent case, stating that the defendant's extensive and bold production of footwear featuring Puma's 'leaping cat' logo warranted the issuance of an injunction.

Puma SE, a German corporation specializing in footwear, apparel, accessories, and more, initiated a legal action. They filed a lawsuit to obtain an injunction against the defendant, Ashok Kumar. Puma accused Ashok Kumar of producing and selling counterfeit "PUMA" products.

The plaintiff asserted that they became aware of the defendant's sale of counterfeit products with their mark in 2022. Following this discovery, their investigation uncovered that the defendant was distributing these infringing products in Uttar Pradesh, Delhi, and Haryana.

While the lawsuit was ongoing, the defendant appeared in the case but did not submit a written statement in response to the plaintiff's claims.

The court granted an interim injunction in favor of the plaintiff, noting that the defendant's use of the plaintiff's trademark not only had the potential to mislead unsuspecting consumers but also to diminish the distinctiveness and reputation of the plaintiff's mark.

Furthermore, a Local Commissioner (LC) was appointed, and this LC submitted a report that was presented as evidence in court.

The court observed that, based on established legal precedent, when the report of the Local Commissioner is not contested by any of the parties involved, it can be considered as evidence in the lawsuit.

Justice Prathiba M. Singh, relying on both the report and the plaintiff's complaint, reached the conclusion that the defendant was operating a comprehensive manufacturing operation for counterfeit "PUMA" shoes.

The court noted that the majority of customers would have difficulty distinguishing between the products offered by the plaintiff and those offered by the defendant.

The court also commented that the defendant's use of the 'PUMA' mark and logo on lower-quality products not only constituted a breach of the plaintiff's legal rights but also posed a risk of diminishing the plaintiff's brand reputation and causing a weakening of the trademarks. Allowing such infringement to go unaddressed would be against the interests of consumers as well.

To determine the amount of damages to be granted, Justice Singh made reference to Rule 20 of the Delhi High Court Intellectual Property Rights Division Rules, 2022. Within this rule, she identified two key factors for consideration: (i) the profits gained by the party engaged in the infringement, and (ii) the length of time over which such profits were acquired.

In line with this assessment, the court awarded damages amounting to Rs. 10 lakhs to the plaintiff. Additionally, the court ordered the defendant to pay costs of Rs. 2 lakhs. Furthermore, the court directed that the counterfeit goods seized by the Local Commissioner be handed over to the plaintiff's representative.

The prominent sporting brand, "PUMA," has a history dating back to its initial use and registration as a trademark by the plaintiff in 1948. In India, both the "PUMA" mark and the 'leaping cat' device were registered by the plaintiff in 1977 and 1986, respectively.

Importantly, the plaintiff has been distributing its products in India under the overarching "PUMA" brand since the 1980s.