- 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
Puma Wins Trademark Infringement Case In Delhi High Court
Puma Wins Trademark Infringement Case In Delhi High Court
In a significant legal victory, the Delhi High Court ruled in favour of German multinational corporation Puma in a trademark infringement lawsuit and awarded it ₹3.5 lakh in cost. The court also permanently banned the defendant, Ashok Kumar, who operates under the name RK Industries, from manufacturing any products using Puma's trademark, including the iconic leaping cat logo.
Puma filed a lawsuit against Kumar for using their registered trademark "Puma" and the leaping cat device logo on his products. The Delhi High Court issued an ex parte ad interim injunction order, prohibiting Kumar from advertising or selling any items (shoes, sportswear, accessories) under these trademarks.
Despite being served with a summons in the same month, Kumar chose not to appear in court or contest the allegations. This lack of defence proved detrimental to his case, as a court-appointed local commissioner's inspection of Kumar's premises unearthed incriminating evidence – 383 pairs of lowers or track pants and 64 stickers bearing the infringed Puma trademark.
.
Based on the evidence and Kumar's absence, Justice Anish Dayal ruled in favour of Puma. While Puma requested ₹6.09 lakh to cover legal expenses, the court awarded ₹3.5 lakh considering court fees, local commissioner's fees, and lawyer fees.