Delhi High Court Rules Against Textile Industrialist In Adidas Trademark Dispute

Delhi High Court Rules Against Textile Industrialist In Adidas Trademark Dispute

In a recent trademark infringement case, the Delhi High Court dealt with a unique defense when Keshav H. Tulsiani, a textile industrialist, claimed to have adopted the name "Adidas" out of admiration for his elder sister. Tulsiani argued that he combined "Adi," a term he uses for his elder sister, with "Das," meaning devotee in Sindhi, to create the name "Adidas."

However, Justice Sanjeev Narula of the Delhi High Court was not convinced by Tulsiani’s explanation. The Court found that Tulsiani's defense undermined his claim of honest adoption of the mark. The Court issued an injunction restraining Tulsiani and others from manufacturing, selling, or dealing in textile goods under the "Adidas" mark or any similar name.

Adidas AG, the global sportswear manufacturer, asserted in its lawsuit that the term "Adidas" was originally coined by its founder, Adolf Dassler, who combined his name "Adi" with the first three letters of his surname "Das." Adidas contended that Tulsiani had used the term in bad faith, noting a history of disputes over the mark dating back to 1992.

Tulsiani argued that the mark’s use in all capital letters by him, versus the global brand’s use in lowercase letters, would prevent confusion. He also claimed that there would be no overlap as Adidas uses the mark for garments while he uses it for textiles. The Court, however, rejected these arguments, calling the claim regarding lowercase letters "flimsy" and "untenable."

Justice Narula emphasized that while Adidas uses the mark for ready-made garments, Tulsiani’s use for textiles inherently involves goods that are similar in nature and purpose. The Court held that the identical mark combined with similar goods creates a significant risk of consumer confusion.

The Court ruled that the legal protection of trademarks is crucial not only for preventing consumer confusion but also for protecting the owner’s investment in the mark. It noted that the unauthorized use of a distinctive mark like "Adidas" risks diluting its unique identity. The defendants failed to provide credible evidence supporting their claim of honest adoption, and their explanation about the name's origin lacked substantiation.

In light of these findings, the Court favored Adidas and ordered Tulsiani to pay litigation costs amounting to ₹11,22,060.