Delhi High Court Applies Test of Purposeful: Refrains Offender’s from Using Puma’s Logo

Delhi High Court Applies Test of Purposeful: Refrains Offender’s from Using Puma’s Logo

The Delhi High Court by its division bench of Justices Manmohan and Saurabh Banerjee held that logo/trademark or any other mark/logo which was deceptively similar to the brand- Puma’s ‘Form Strip logo’ amounts to infringement of registered trademarks.

The factual matrix of the case is that the Appellant (Original Defendant)- Absogain Retail Solutions was directed to ensure delivery of all the infringing finished/unfinished materials bearing the Respondents (Original Plaintiff)- Puma Se, trademark ‘Form Strip logo’ i.e., the goods seized by the Local Commissioner to the authorized representative of the Respondent.

The Respondent was also awarded damages to the tune of Rs. 3 lakhs along with costs of the suit.

The High Court further disagreed with the contention forwarded by the Appellant that it was not aware of the Respondents registered design, and observed that the Respondents design was unique and capable of being registered and the Appellant had a passion for copying famous registered designs as was apparent from the registration application filed by it qua a combination of designs.

The Court noted that the Appellant had a ‘passion’ for copying famous registered designs as was apparent from the registration application filed by it qua a combination of designs of Slazenger and Channel. In this regard, the bench remarked, “the appellant-defendant is a repeat offender and the appellant-defendant’s argument that it was not aware of respondent-plaintiffs registration or if it had known about the same, it would never have used such a design, is only to be stated to be rejected.”

The Court discerned that the onus to prove that the Trial Court had no territorial jurisdiction was cast upon the Appellant which it had failed to discharge as it admittedly did not lead any evidence.

“The Commercial Judge after examining the downloads from the respondent-plaintiffs website, third party websites showing sale of Puma products at www.flipkart.com, www.amazon.com etc. and internet downloads showing advertisement of defendants business activity at www.justdial.com and an invoice dated 12th February, 2019 issued by the defendant showing sale of infringing products by the defendant at www.shopclues.com which admittedly is an interactive websites accessible from Delhi, concluded that the Trial Court had the territorial jurisdiction to try this suit,” added the bench.

Thus, finding that the Appellant was a repeat offender and the infringing products were found to have been sold on the interactive website like www.shopclues.com, the High Court observed that the present case fell in the category ‘repeatedly known infringer which causes minor impacts to the respondent plaintiff’ and the Commercial Court had therefore, rightly quantified the damages at Rs. 3 lakhs.

Accordingly, the Court dismissed the appeal.

Advocate Saurabh Kamra appeared for the Appellant, whereas Advocate Raman Narula appeared for the Respondent.