Jahanvi Agarwal
In a significant legal development, the Delhi High Court has ordered an Agra-based shopkeeper to pay substantial damages of ₹10 lakh to PUMA for the sale of counterfeit shoes bearing the ‘PUMA’ trademark and the iconic ‘leaping cat’ design. This decisive ruling was delivered by Justice Prathiba M Singh.
The court’s verdict pinpointed that the defendant, Ashok Kumar, trading under the name ‘Kumkum Shoes,’ was acutely aware of the brand reputation and equity associated with the ‘PUMA’ mark. Kumar deliberately engaged in the manufacturing and sale of counterfeit products under this distinguished mark, essentially attempting to ride on the coattails of PUMA’s goodwill and standing.
Crucially, the court considered the findings of the Local Commissioner’s report, which unveiled that Kumkum Shoes had reaped substantial profits ranging between ₹18 lakh to ₹19 lakh from the sale of counterfeit PUMA shoes. Consequently, the court deemed the suit in favour of PUMA and decreed damages amounting to ₹10 lakh, along with costs of ₹2 lakh.
Moreover, the court underscored that the defendant’s use of the ‘PUMA’ mark and logo on substandard products not only infringed upon PUMA’s statutory and common law rights but also posed a significant risk of brand equity erosion and mark dilution.
In the court’s view, unchecked infringement could not only harm PUMA but also adversely affect consumers. Purchasers could unwittingly acquire counterfeit products at higher prices, wrongly believing them to be authentic PUMA items. Hence, the sale of counterfeit products ultimately contradicts public interest.
PUMA initiated legal action last year, alleging the sale of counterfeit ‘PUMA’ products in Agra, Uttar Pradesh, Delhi and Haryana. In response, the court issued an interim order in September 2022, prohibiting the defendant from manufacturing or selling shoes bearing the ‘PUMA’ trademark.
A report compiled by the Local Commissioner further confirmed the defendant’s extensive counterfeit shoe manufacturing operation. Given the defendant’s non-participation in the proceedings, the court has now passed a permanent injunction decree.
This case underscores the vital significance of protecting brand integrity, intellectual property, and safeguarding consumer interests.