Adidas Ag vs Ashok Kumar Unkown on 20 August, 2025

[Cites 7, Cited by 0]

Delhi High Court - Orders

Adidas Ag vs Ashok Kumar Unkown on 20 August, 2025

Author: Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora

Bench: Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora

                          $~52
                          *         IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                          +         CS(COMM) 868/2025 & I.A. 20309-13/2025
                                    ADIDAS AG                                                              .....Plaintiff
                                                                  Through:            Mr. Pramod Kumar Singh, Mr. Kirat
                                                                                      Singh and Ms. Aastha Sharma,
                                                                                      Advocates

                                                                  versus

                                    ASHOK KUMAR UNKOWN                                                                     .....Defendant
                                                Through: None

                          CORAM:
                          HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA
                                            ORDER

% 20.08.2025 I.A. 20313/2025

1. This is an application under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ['CPC'], filed by the plaintiff seeking exemption from instituting pre- litigation mediation and settlement.

2. Having regard to the facts that the present suit contemplates urgent interim relief and in light of the judgement of the Supreme Court in Yamini Manohar v. T.K.D. Keerthi1 , exemption from the requirement of pre- institution mediation is granted to the plaintiff.

3. Accordingly, the application stands disposed of.

I.A. 20312/2025

4. This is an application under Section 151 of CPC seeking exemption 1 (2024) 5 SCC 815 CS(COMM) 868/2025 Page 1 of 15 This is a digitally signed order.

5. In view of the fact that the Plaintiff has sought an ex-parte ad-interim injunction along with the appointment of a Local Commissioner, the exemption from effecting advance service upon the Defendants is granted.

6. Accordingly, this application stands disposed of.

I.A. 20311/2025

7. This is an application seeking leave to file additional documents under Order XI Rule 1(4) of CPC [as amended by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015], within thirty (30) days.

8. The Plaintiff, if it wishes to file additional documents, shall do so strictly as per the provisions of the Commercial Courts Act and the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018 ('DHC Rules') within a period of thirty (30) days.

9. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed.

10. Accordingly, the application is disposed of.

CS(COMM) 868/2025

11. Let the plaint be registered as a suit.

12. It is stated in the plaint that the Defendant is an unidentified entity and the counterfeit products are sold by the Defendant against cash memo making it difficult to ascertain the identity of the Defendant.

13. It is noted that at paragraph no. 32 of the plaint, the Plaintiff has stated a signboard bearing the name - S.S. Products was displayed outside the Defendant's manufacturing unit situated at KH No.- 155/255, Gali No. 10 Pooth Khurd, Delhi-110039. Accordingly, the Plaintiff is directed to file an amended memo of parties incorporating the aforesaid details of the Defendant, within one (1) week. The details of the proprietor of the firm can CS(COMM) 868/2025 Page 2 of 15 This is a digitally signed order.

14. Summons be issued to the Defendant by all permissible modes on filing of process fee. Affidavit of service(s) be filed within two (2) weeks.

15. The summons shall indicate that the written statement must be filed within thirty (30) days from the date of receipt of the summons. The Defendant shall also file affidavit of admission/denial of the documents filed by the Plaintiff, failing which the written statements shall not be taken on record.

16. The Plaintiff is at liberty to file replication thereto within thirty (30) days after filing of the written statement. The replication shall be accompanied by affidavit of admission/denial in respect of the documents filed by the Defendant, failing which the replication shall not be taken on record.

17. The parties shall file all original documents in support of their respective claims along with their respective pleadings. In case parties are placing reliance on a document, which is not in their power and possession, its detail and source shall be mentioned in the list of reliance, which shall also be filed with the pleadings.

18. It is made clear that any unjustified denial of documents may lead to an order of costs against the concerned party.

19. Any party seeking inspection of documents may do so in accordance with the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018.

20. List the matter before the Joint Registrar (J) on 06.10.2025.

21. List the matter before the Court on 20.02.2026.

I.A. 20309/2025

22. This is an application on behalf of the plaintiff under Order XXXIX CS(COMM) 868/2025 Page 3 of 15 This is a digitally signed order.

23. The case set up by the Plaintiff in the plaint may be summarized are as under: -

23.1. The Plaintiff - adidas AG is a company registered under the laws of Germany and is engaged in manufacturing, sale and distribution of sportswear, shoes, jackets, apparels, caps, other apparels and accessories across the world.

23.2. The Plaintiff Company started its business in India in 1989 through Bata India Pvt. Ltd., as its licensee and distributor. Presently, the Plaintiff carries out its business in India primarily through its wholly owned subsidiary company - adidas India Marketing Private Limited and has a robust retail and wholesale distribution network in India. 23.3. The Plaintiff has been using the trademark 'adidas' since 1949 and accordingly applied for registration of the trademark 'adidas' in Class 25.

The trademark 'adidas' was created in 1949, as a combination of the name of its founder Adi Dassler.

The said mark 'adidas' was registered in favour of the Plaintiff as its proprietor vide Registration No. 352655 dated 22.08.1979 in India. The said mark 'adidas' has been renewed from time to time; with the current renewal valid in favour of the Plaintiff till 22.08.2027.

23.4. The Plaintiff company is one of the world's largest sports-brand and its products are available in more than 160 countries worldwide. The Plaintiff's product bearing the marks 'adidas' and 'performance logo' , 'trefoil' ['adidas mark'], and device mark of 'three stripes' CS(COMM) 868/2025 Page 4 of 15 This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 12/09/2025 at 21:50:49 are well-known and enjoys transborder reputation. The details of the list of Plaintiff's various trademark applications and registrations thereof are metioned at paragraph 13 of the plaint.

23.5. The Plaintiff's marks, including the 'performance logo' , 'trefoil' ['adidas mark'], and device of 'three stripes' , are original artistic works, which are protected under Section 2(c) of the Copyrights Act, 1957. These marks are distinctive in their visual presentation and design, and are globally recognized symbols of the Plaintiff's identity and quality. 23.6. The Plaintiff has actively promoted its brand and business, including in socks, apparel and other accessories, through various channels. These include its own retail stores, showrooms, a network of authorised dealers, and its official website www.adidas.co.in, which facilitates nationwide online shopping.

The Plaintiff also sells its products through third-party e-commerce platforms such as Amazon and Flipkart. Screenshots(s) of the Plaintiff's original products bearing the 'adidas marks', as listed on its official website and on the aforementioned e-commerce platforms, the details of which are given in paragraph 18 of the plaint.

23.7. The Plaintiff's gross profit for the year 2024 was 12,026 million Euro and net sales for the year 2024 was 23,683 million Euro. The details of the plaintiff's annual gross profit and net sales for the year 2018 to 2024 are provided in paragraph 19 of the plaint.

23.8. The Plaintiff's trademark 'adidas' and device mark of 'three stripes' or 'trefoil' [adidas mark], have become immensely popular amongst consumers and have acquired the status of well-known trademark.

CS(COMM) 868/2025 Page 5 of 15

This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 12/09/2025 at 21:50:49 23.9. It is stated that during a periodical market survey carried out by Plaintiff in the month of July 2025 [specifically on 23.07.2025], it came to the knowledge of the Plaintiff that the Defendant is engaged in the business of manufacturing/storing/selling/marketing and distributing counterfeiting products including socks and other accessories bearing the falsified trademark 'adidas' and 'performance logo' and/or any other adidas mark used independently or in combined manner, from Defendant's 'manufacturing unit' situated at KH No.- 155/255, Gali No. 10 Pooth Khurd, Delhi-110039 ['Defendant's Manufacturing Unit'] and also from its warehouse situated at KH No.- 155/237 Gali No. 9 Pooth Khurd, Delhi- 110039 ['Defendant's Warehouse']. The photographs of the premises of the defendants are incorporated in paragraph no. 30 of the plaint. 23.10. On 23.07.2025, the Plaintiff through an Authorized Representative conducted an Investigation; (a) firstly, the investigator visited the Defendant's Manufacturing Unit, wherein socks of different brands [including that of the Plaintiff] were being manufactured on more than 10 machines and (b) subsequently, the investigator visited the Defendant's Warehouse, wherein the said manufactured products were being stocked.

Thereafter, the investigator purchased samples of socks of various brands, including the infringing product of the Plaintiff [i.e., two pairs of socks for an amount of Rs. 100/- The investigator made the payment in cash and the seller did not issue any invoice. The photographs of the two pairs of socks purchased from the Defendant are incorporated at page nos. 40 and 41 of the plaint.

23.11. Defendant with mala fide intentions has infringed the 'adidas marks' CS(COMM) 868/2025 Page 6 of 15 This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 12/09/2025 at 21:50:49 of the Plaintiff by affixing similar trademarks ['adidas marks'] of the Plaintiff. Aggrieved by the said conduct of the unknown Defendant, the Plaintiff has filed the present suit.

24. Learned counsel for the Plaintiff submits that though a signboard bearing the name 'S.S. Products' was displayed outside the Defendant's Manufacturing Unit. However, the Plaintiff is not in a position to confirm whether this entity is directly owned, operated, or affiliated with the Defendant and for this reason, the Defendant has been arrayed as 'Ashok Kumar' based on the 'John Doe' principle applicable in India. 24.1. He states that there is a QR code i.e., security label pasted on the cover of the original products [i.e., Socks] of the Plaintiff's. He states that the security label is unique for every individual product. He states that the said security label is scannable and provides information to authentic adidas product information. It provides the details of the place of manufacture of the product. He submits that no such security label is present on the counterfeit and infringed product of the Defendant. 24.2. He states that the packaging of the infringing products is also not the packaging used by the Plaintiff.

24.3. He states that the Defendant continues to manufacture/store/ sell/market/ distribute/ store large quantities of infringing products bearing trademarks identical and/or deceptively and confusingly similar to the registered 'adidas marks' of the Plaintiff. He states that the counterfeiting products including socks and other accessories are readily available in the vicinity of Pooth Khurd, Delhi and nearby localities of Delhi. 24.4. He prays that in view of the said facts and circumstances; this Court may be pleased to grant an ex-parte ad interim injunction in favour of the CS(COMM) 868/2025 Page 7 of 15 This is a digitally signed order.

25. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the Plaintiff and perused the record.

26. The Plaintiff is the registered proprietor of the trademark 'adidas', the 'performance logo' , 'trefoil' ['adidas mark'], and device mark of 'three stripes' .

27. A table showing the comparison of the original product of the Plaintiff with the counterfiet and infringed product of the Defendant bearing the Plaintiff's trademarks, as set out at page nos. 40-41 of the plaint, is as under: -

                                              Plaintiff's Original                         Defendant's Counterfiet
                                                       Product                              and Infringing Product




                          CS(COMM) 868/2025                                                                                Page 8 of 15

This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 12/09/2025 at 21:50:49

28. During the hearing, learned counsel of the Plaintiff has handed-over the original product of the Plaintiff and the counterfeit products manufactured by the Defendant bearing the impugned marks. On a perusal of the said products, prima facie it appears that the Defendant has affixed the replica of the Plaintiff's registered word mark 'adidas' and the 'performance logo' on its counterfiet and infringed products. Furthermore, the Defendant has also affixed the Plaintiff's 'performance logo' and registered word mark 'adidas' on the outer-packaging of the counterfiet and infringed product. The Defendant has exactly copied the essential features of the Plaintiff's trademarks on it's counterfiet and infringing products.

Pertinently, on the Defendant's infringing products, the details of the manufacturer on the label pasted on the outer packaging is stated to be 'Adidas India Marketing Pvt. Ltd.'. In view of the assertion of the Plaintiff that these are not its products and the Defendant is not authorised by the CS(COMM) 868/2025 Page 9 of 15 This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 12/09/2025 at 21:50:49 Plaintiff to manufacture; it is evident that the Defendant's goods are counterfeit and are being sold to unwary consumers as the goods of the Plaintiff.

29. In view of the aforesaid and on basis of the averments made in the plaint, this court is of the prima facie opinion that a case of infringement and passing off has been made out by the Plaintiff; the act of the Defendant by employing the replicas of the Plaintiff's registered trademark/logo/label on its counterfeit and infringing products will lead to a consumers of average intelligence to believe that they are purchasing an authorized product of the Plaintiff.

30. In view of the aforesaid, the Plaintiff has established a prima Facie case for grant of an ex parte ad-interim injunction against the Defendant. The balance of convenience also lies in favour of the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff will suffer irreparable loss in case the Defendant is not restrained from the using the Plaintiff's trademark/trade name/Performance logo/device mark.

31. Consequently, until the next date of hearing, the Defendant, its associates, agents, directors, officers, employees, distributors, franchisee, representatives and assigns are restrained from using the Plaintiff's trademarks - 'adidas', the 'performance logo' , 'trefoil' ['adidas mark'], and device mark of 'three stripes' or any other adidas marks of the Plaintiff in any from and manner, which are identical and/or deceptively similar to the aforesaid registered trademarks of the Plaintiff on products, including socks and other accessories, thereby infringing Plaintiff's registered trademarks and copyright.

CS(COMM) 868/2025 Page 10 of 15

This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 12/09/2025 at 21:50:49 The Defendant is also restrained from using any indicia whatsoever to show any association or connection of the Defendant or its products with the Plaintiff.

32. In view of the fact that the Plaintiffs has sought appointment of Local Commissioner to seize the infringing and counterfeit product, the very purpose of grant of ex-parte ad interim injunction would be defeated if the Defendant is given notices contemplated in Order XXXIX Rule 3 of CPC prior to the execution of the commission. Hence, it is directed that the Plaintiff shall serve notice under Order XXXIX Rule 3 of CPC at the time of execution of the Local Commission which shall not be later than two (2) weeks from today.

33. Issue notice to the Defendant through all modes.

34. Let the reply to this application be filed within a period of three (3) weeks.

35. Rejoinder thereto, if any, be filed within a period of three (3) weeks thereafter.

36. List before the learned Joint Registrar (J) on 06.10.2025.

37. List before the Court on 20.02.2026.

I.A. 20310/2025 (for appointment of Local Commissioner)

38. This is an application under Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC read with Section 135 of the Trademarks Act, 1999 and Section 51 of the Copyrights Act, 1957 filed by the Plaintiff for appointment of a Local Commissioner to visit and inspect the Defendant's 'manufacturing unit', situated at KH No.- 155/255, Gali No. 10 Pooth Khurd, Delhi-110039 ['Defendant's Manufacturing Unit'] and Defendant's warehouse situated at KH No.- 155/237 Gali No. 9 Pooth Khurd, Delhi-110039 ['Defendant's Warehouse'].

CS(COMM) 868/2025 Page 11 of 15

This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 12/09/2025 at 21:50:49

39. In order to ensure that the injunction is fully complied with and to preserve the evidence of infringement, this Court deems it appropriate to appoint Local Commissioner to visit the aforementioned premises of the Defendant.

40. Mr. Shailendra Singh, Advocate [Enrolment No. D/3614/2017, Mob. No. 9999332944, e-mail [email protected]] is appointed as a Local Commissioner with a direction to visit the aforesaid premises of the Defendant.

41. The mandate of the Local Commissioner is as under: -

i. The Local Commissioner shall visit the premises of the Defendant as mentioned above, to inspect and seize the infringing products of the Defendant bearing the registered trademarks of the Plaintiff. ii. The Local Commissioner is permitted to seize the infringing products bearing the registered trademarks of the Plaintiff at the above premises and if knowledge is acquired of any other premises where the goods could be stored, the Local Commissioner is free to record the same and then visit the other premises and conduct a seizure there as well.

iii. The Local Commissioner shall also inspect and seize any goods/materials including pamphlets, brochures, stickers, packaging materials, dyes or blocks used for preparing the manufacturing materials, display boards, sign boards, advertising material, dyes or blocks, unfinished, packed, unpacked infringing products bearing the registered trademarks of the Plaintiff or any other documents, wrapper etc. so that it can be ensured that no fresh manufacturing of the infringing products bearing the registered trademarks of the Plaintiff CS(COMM) 868/2025 Page 12 of 15 This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 12/09/2025 at 21:50:49 can take place.

iv. The Local Commissioner shall also obtain the details as to since when infringing goods bearing the registered trademarks of the Plaintiff are being used by the Defendant and obtain copies of the accounts, if the same is found to be sold in market.

v. The Local Commissioner shall obtain accounts including ledgers, stock registers, invoice books, receipt books, cash books, purchase and sale records and any other books of record or commercial transactions kept at the premises of the Defendant and take photocopy and/or record of all such transactions that pertain to impugned products, if any. The Defendant shall cooperate and give passwords to the computers and the files containing the accounts, if the same is stored on the computer or a specific software.

vi. After preparation of the inventory, the infringing products bearing the registered trademarks of the Plaintiff, in fully manufactured or unfinished condition, including packaging materials, advertising, promotional materials, pamphlets, brochures, boxes, videos, hoardings, brochures, banners, signage, cartons and other material bearing the registered trademarks of the Plaintiff or the marks, which are similar to the Plaintiff's trademarks, shall be released to the Defendant on Superdari. The monetary value of the stock shall also be ascertained.

vii. The Local Commissioner is also permitted to break open the locks, with the help of the local police, if access to the premises where the infringing products have been stocked/manufactured, is denied to the Commissioners.

CS(COMM) 868/2025 Page 13 of 15

This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 12/09/2025 at 21:50:49 viii. Upon being requested, the concerned, the Station House Officer ['SHO'] at Pooth Khurd, Delhi - 110039 having jurisdiction over the aforesaid locations shall render necessary cooperation for execution of the commission, as per this order.

ix. The Local Commissioner is permitted to take photographs and videography of the proceedings of the commission, if it is deemed appropriate. Two (2) representatives of the Plaintiff, which may include a lawyer, are permitted to accompany the Local Commissioner.

x. The Local Commissioner, while executing the commission, shall ensure that there is no disruption to the business of the Defendant, except for the purposes of the execution of the commission. The commission shall be executed in a peaceful manner. xi. Copy of the order and complete paper book shall be served by the Local Commissioner upon the Defendant at the time of execution of commission.

42. The order passed today shall be communicated by the Local Commissioner to the Defendant.

43. The fee of the Local Commissioner is fixed at Rs. 2,00,000/-; excluding out of pocket expenses, travel expenses, etc., which is to be borne by the Plaintiff.

44. The Local Commission shall be executed within two (2) weeks. The report of the Local Commissioner shall be filed within two (2) weeks thereafter.

45. The order passed today, shall not be uploaded for a period of three (3) weeks for enabling the execution of the commission.

CS(COMM) 868/2025 Page 14 of 15

This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 12/09/2025 at 21:50:49

46. In terms of the foregoing, the present application stands disposed of.

47. Copy of this Order to be given dasti under the signatures of the Court Master.

MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J AUGUST 20, 2025/rhc/MG CS(COMM) 868/2025 Page 15 of 15 This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 12/09/2025 at 21:50:49

Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Delhi High Court - Orders