- Home
- News
- Articles+
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- News
- Articles
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
Delhi High Court orders Agra-based Kumkum Shoes to compensate ‘Puma’ for dealing in counterfeit footwear
Delhi High Court orders Agra-based Kumkum Shoes to compensate ‘Puma’ for dealing in counterfeit footwear
As per the report of the local commissioner, the company garnered a profit of Rs.18-19 lakh from selling fakes
The Delhi High Court has ordered an Agra-based shopkeeper to pay Rs.10 lakh damages to Puma for selling counterfeit shoes using its trademark and ‘leaping cat’ logo.
The bench of Justice Prathiba M Singh stated that the defendant Ashok Kumar trading as ‘Kumkum Shoes’ was aware of the brand equity enjoyed by the ‘Puma’ mark. He deliberately chose to manufacture and sell counterfeit products under the mark and took advantage of the German multinational company’s goodwill and reputation.
As per the report of the local commissioner, Kumkum Shoes garnered a profit of Rs.18-19 lakh from selling counterfeit Puma shoes. Thus, the court noted that the suit was decreed in favor of Puma with damages worth Rs.10 lakh and costs of Rs.2 lakh.
The bench added that the defendant, by using the mark and the logo of the reputed brand on inferior quality products meant a violation of Puma’s statutory and common law rights. It also led to the erosion of its brand equity and resulted in dilution of the marks.
Justice Singh held, “Such infringement, if left unchecked, would also be contrary to the consumer’s interests, as they may be purchasing the counterfeit products and paying a higher price presuming the same to be the plaintiff’s branded products.”
Since the defendant did not attend the proceedings, the bench passed the decree of permanent injunction.
Last year, Puma had approached the high court alleging that various counterfeit products under the mark ‘Puma’ were being sold in Agra, Uttar Pradesh as well as Delhi and Haryana.
In September 2022, the court passed an interim order restraining the defendant from selling or manufacturing any shoes with the ‘Puma’ trademark.
A report submitted by the local commissioner revealed that the defendant was running a full-scale manufacturing operation of counterfeit Puma shoes.
Advocates Ranjan Narula and Shashi P Ojha appeared for Puma.