The Delhi High Court has reiterated the need for heightened protection of well-known trademarks, emphasizing their vulnerability to piracy. In a trademark infringement suit filed by Puma, the court underscored that such marks require a higher degree of legal safeguard.

Justice Mini Pushkarna observed, "A mark which is well-known requires a higher degree of protection, as it is highly susceptible to piracy."

Puma initiated legal proceedings against the defendants engaged in stocking, selling, and supplying counterfeit footwear featuring the registered marks "PUMA," its logo, and the Form Strip logo without authorization.

In early October 2022, Puma identified a significant volume of counterfeit shoes being manufactured, supplied, and sold across multiple shops in East Delhi. Subsequent investigations led to the discovery of the defendants’ manufacturing unit in Mandoli, North-East Delhi.

Puma argued that the defendants had replicated its trademarks to unlawfully capitalize on its goodwill, misleading consumers and the trade, thereby constituting passing off.

The court noted that the plaintiff’s trademarks had been recognized as well-known marks by the Trade Marks Registry on December 30, 2019. A Local Commissioner was appointed by the court on October 18, 2022, to inspect the defendant’s premises. The commissioner’s report, submitted on November 14, 2022, documented extensive counterfeiting activities, including an inventory of infringing goods.

Key findings from the inspection included:

• The presence of counterfeit products bearing Puma’s registered trademarks, as well as those of other well-known brands such as Adidas, Nike, and Lee Cooper.

• Discovery of counterfeit footwear, shoe soles, spats, and screen films with infringing marks.

• A metal mould featuring the logos of multiple renowned brands, indicating large-scale counterfeiting beyond Puma’s products.

The court noted that counterfeiting constituted the most blatant form of trademark infringement and passing off. It observed, "Any goods or products, that are identical to such a degree, in the manner of appearance, for an identical business, with an identical customer base, fall under the category of counterfeit and will unquestionably cause confusion and deception in the eyes of the public."

Given that well-known trademarks inherently possess stronger market recognition, the court reiterated that they merit broader legal protection due to their higher susceptibility to infringement.

Finding no valid defense from the defendants, the court ruled in favor of Puma, holding that the defendants had infringed upon its trademarks and engaged in passing off. Puma’s counsel sought reimbursement for litigation expenses, including:

• Rs. 1,00,000/- for the Local Commissioner’s fee

• Rs. 8,00,000/- for legal costs

Considering the clear establishment of counterfeiting, the court imposed actual litigation costs and awarded damages. Additionally, a penalty of Rs. 2,00,000/- was imposed on the defendant.

For Plaintiff: Advocates Ranjan Narula, Shakti Priyan Nair, and Parth Bajaj
Case Title: Puma SE v Mahesh Kumar (2025:DHC:1552)