Delhi District Court
Nike Innovate Cv vs Pankaj Gupta on 19 March, 2026
Digitally
signed by
RAKESH
RAKESH PANDIT
PANDIT Date:
2026.03.19
05:22:25
+0530
1
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAKESH PANDIT, DISTRICT JUDGE
(COMMERCIAL)-13, CENTRAL DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
DLCT010137192021
CS (Comm.) No.4115/2021
Nike Innovate C.V.
Having its principle office at
One Bowerman Drive, Beaverton,
Oregon 97005-6453
United States of America
Through its Authorized Attorney
Mr. Narender Singh
E-1, LGF, Lajpat Nagar-3,
Bew Delhi-110024 .....Plaintiff
Versus
Pankaj Gupta
L-2/1, Shastri Nagar,
Delhi-110031. .....Defendant
Date of institution : 12.10.2021
Date when order reserved : 26.02.2026
Date of Judgment : 19.03.2026
JUDGMENT
1 By this judgment, I shall dispose of suit for permanent injunction, infringement of Trademark & Copyright, passing off, CS (COMM) No. 4115/2021 Nike Innovate C V Vs. Pankaj Gupta Page 1 of 14 2 and rendition of accounts etc., filed by the plaintiff against the defendant.
2 The brief facts of the case as per plaintiff are that plaintiff i.e. Nike Innovate C,V., is a limited partnership (Commanditaire Vennootschap) which is a subsidiary of Nike Inc., a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the state of Oregon, United States of America, of the address One Bowerman Drive, Beaverton, Oregon 97005-6453. It appointed Sh. Narendra Singh to file and institute the present suit.
3 That the Plaintiff Company was founded in the year 1964 and it deals in various sportswear and goods for sports and extreme weather conditions for various consumers/ athletes. The Plaintiff Company is rightful owner of the trademark "Nike", "Nike Shox", Nikefeit", "Nike+Cardiokm" and logos "
and "Nike Air" and adopted these as its official logo. It is stated that the trademarks of plaintiff are
registered in India under various classes of the Trademarks Rules 2022 which are mentioned in paragraph 10 of the plaint. It is stated that these trademarks are valid, renewed from time to time and are subsisting in favour of the Plaintiff Company CS (COMM) No. 4115/2021 Nike Innovate C V Vs. Pankaj Gupta Page 2 of 14 3 4 The Plaintiff's goods bearing the said trademarks/labels are also sold through various e-commerce platforms. The Plaintiff's Company has proprietary rights, both under statutory and common law, in its said trademarks/labels, its goodwill and reputation thereunder, and its copyrights, plaintiff Company has exclusive rights to its said trademarks/labels and that nobody can be permitted to use the same or any other deceptively similar trade mark/trade name/copyrights thereto, in any manner whatsoever.
5 It is stated the defendant is engaged in the wholesale distribution of socks and other allied/related products. The Plaintiff is not aware the exact constitution of the defendant and following the John Doe principle the defendant has been shown as "ASHOK KUMAR". The Defendant has adopted and started using the impugned trademark NIKE and SWOOSH LOGO of plaintiff. The Defendant is also using the same impugned trademarks/labels in order to give a false description to its impugned goods and is running a warehouse in Shastri Nagar Delhi and selling socks and other accessories in markets of Shastri Nagar and other parts of Delhi. The impugned goods i.e. socks, and other allied/related products are being distributed/wholesale, solicited and sold by defendant by using CS (COMM) No. 4115/2021 Nike Innovate C V Vs. Pankaj Gupta Page 3 of 14 4 the plaintiff's trademarks/labels. The Defendant has imitated the entire shape, colour scheme, manner and placement of literary and artistic work on the impugned goods. Defendant's impugned goods and business are identical to the said trademarks/labels of the Plaintiff in each and every respect including phonetically, visually, structurally, in its basic idea and in its essential features. The Defendant has also copied the artistic features involved in the Plaintiff's trade mark/label and is thus infringing the Plaintiff's copyrights involved in its said trademarks/labels. Defendant is reproducing it on his labels and packaging materials, finished goods, etc. without the leave and license of the Plaintiff. The Defendant has no rights to use it in any manner in relation to its impugned goods and business or for any other specification of goods and business whatsoever being in violation of the Plaintiff's statutory and common law rights. The same is apparent from the comparative chart of both the competing trademark/label/colour combination/trade dress of the plaintiff and the defendant which is shown in paragraph 25 of the plaint.
6 It is stated that in the third week of September 2021, the Plaintiff came across about impugned products of the defendant in the market of Shastri Nagar. The Plaintiff made an inquiry in the market, which revealed that the defendant has adopted and started using and soliciting the impugned Trade CS (COMM) No. 4115/2021 Nike Innovate C V Vs. Pankaj Gupta Page 4 of 14 5 Mark/Label in relation to his impugned goods in the markets. The defendant is also carrying on its impugned activities under the impugned Trade Mark/Label in a clandestine and surreptitious manner. Defendant is not only making the retail sales but are also supplying the impugned goods bearing the impugned Trade Mark/Label in wholesale. It is further stated that by selling the goods having identical or similar logos Trademark etc., the defendant is passing off his goods as that of plaintiff and infringing the plaintiff's copyright in the trademark/label/trade dress and thus violating the intellectual property right/trademark/ copyright of the plaintiff and causing damages to the business of the plaintiff. It is stated that defendant is doing his business on large scale which will impact the business of the plaintiff and also cause harm to the genuine customers of the plaintiff. In the plaint, it is prayed that decree of permanent injunction be passed against the defendant etc., restraining him from using the deceptively similar mark "Nike" belonging to the plaintiff. It is further prayed that defendant etc., be restrained for the infringement of trademarks of the plaintiff. It is further prayed that defendant/s be restrained from passing of the goods similar to those of plaintiff, rendition of account, damages etc., is also sought along with ancillary reliefs.
CS (COMM) No. 4115/2021 Nike Innovate C V Vs. Pankaj Gupta Page 5 of 14 67 Initially the suit was filed against unknown persons. Ex-parte ad-interim order dated 21.10.2021 was passed on application u/o.39 rule 1 & 2 CPC in which apart from passing interim order, Local Commissioner was appointed to inspect the premises where the alleged infringed goods were sold.
After the inspection of the spot, the report was given by Local Commissioner. As per the plaintiff, one person was found selling/storing etc., of the infringed goods. Plaintiff moved an application u/o.1 rule 10 CPC for making him party. The said application was allowed vide order dated 14.12.2021. So, Pankaj Gupta was impleaded. Defendant filed written statement.
8 In the written statement defendant stated that the present suit is filed on the basis of wrong information. It is stated that the suit is liable to be dismissed u/o.7 rule 11 CPC. It is stated that it is the modus operandi of the employees of the company to extort the hard earned money of the traders. It is stated that plaintiff failed to disclose the source of information. It is stated that employees of plaintiff took signatures of the defendant on some blank papers. The contents of the plaint, on merits, were denied by defendant.
9 No replication was filed by plaintiff.
CS (COMM) No. 4115/2021 Nike Innovate C V Vs. Pankaj Gupta Page 6 of 14 710 On 11.04.2023, from the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:-
1. Whether the power of attorney executed in favour of AR of the plaintiff is valid or not? OPD
2. Whether plaintiff is entitled for a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendant, its associates and agents, officer, employees, distributors, representatives and assigns from using the trademark "Nike" and "Swoosh logo" and any other registered "Nike marks" on socks and other accessories deceptively, identical and confusingly similar to the registered company? OPP
3. Whether plaintiff is entitled for a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendant, its associates and agents, officer, employees, distributors, representatives and assigns from using the copyright vested in device/ logo of "Swoosh mark" and any other registered "Nike marks" on socks and other accessories in any form and manner and copyright identical and confusingly & deceptively similar to the device/ log of Swoosh mark or any other registered 'Nike marks' of the plaintiff? OPP
4. Whether plaintiff is entitled for a decree of permanent injunction restraining defendant etc., from passing of the goods as that of the plaintiff's goods? OPP
5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for preliminary decree of rendition of accounts? OPP
6. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a final decree of rendition of accounts? OPP
7. Whether plaintiff is entitled for delivery up of all the infringing finished and unfinished materials bearing the infringing and violative trademark/label of the plaintiff for the purpose of destruction and erasure? OPP
8. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree of damages from the defendant? OPP CS (COMM) No. 4115/2021 Nike Innovate C V Vs. Pankaj Gupta Page 7 of 14 8
9. Relief.
11 To prove its case, plaintiff examined Sh. Narendra Singh as PW-1. He led examination-in-chief by way of affidavit and deposed in terms of the facts of the plaint and relied on following documents:-
Srl. Document/Particulars Exhibit(s)
No.
1 POA dated 11.12.2019 in favour of AR Ex.PW1/1 (OSR)
2 POA dated 19.01.2022 in favour of AR Ex.PW1/2 (OSR)
3 Legal proceeding certificates Ex.PW1/3 to Ex.PW1/8
4 Copy of photographs of the infringing Mark P-1
products of the defendant
5 Copy of photographs of the original Mark P-2
products of the plaintiff company
6 Computerized printouts of Notarial PW1/11 and PW1/12
certificate and Extract from the Business respectively
Register of the Netherlands Chamber of
Commerce
7 Affidavit u/o.11 rule 6 CPC r/w section Ex.PW1/13
63(4)(c) BSA 2023
12 Plaintiff also examined Sh. Somu Prabal Kumar as
PW2.
13 Plaintiff also examined Ms. Shivika Mehra (Ld. LC) as
PW3 who proved her report dated 25.10.2021 as Ex.PW3/A. 14 No DE was led by defendant. So, DE was closed vide order dated 09.07.2024.
CS (COMM) No. 4115/2021 Nike Innovate C V Vs. Pankaj Gupta Page 8 of 14 915 After closure of evidence, final arguments were heard.
16 I have gone through the record, evidence, submissions forwarded by counsel for the parties.
17 My issue wise finding is as under:-
ISSUES NO. 1Whether the power of attorney executed in favour of AR of the plaintiff is valid or not? OPD
18 The onus to prove these issues were on defendant. Ld. Counsel for defendant stated that the Power of Attorney is not properly proved and there is no proper chain of agency by which the Power to file this case or depose on behalf of plaintiff, is proved. On the other hand, it is argued by Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff that there is a presumption in favour of the validly executed power of attorney and the defendant failed to rebut that presumption.
As far as Evidence Act is concerned, there is a provision i.e. sec.85 of Indian Evidence Act (section 84 of BSA) which is as follows:-
85. Presumption as to powers-of-attorney. -- The Court shall presume that every document purporting to be a power-of-attorney, and to have been executed before, and authenticated by, a Notary Public, or any Court, Judge, Magistrate, 1[Indian] Consul or Vice-Consul, or CS (COMM) No. 4115/2021 Nike Innovate C V Vs. Pankaj Gupta Page 9 of 14 10 representative 2(xxx) of the 3[Central Government], was so executed and authenticated.
84. Presumption as to powers-of-attorney - The Court shall presume that every document purporting to be a power-of-attorney, and to have been executed before, and authenticated by, a Notary Public, or any Court, Judge, Magistrate, Indian Consul or Vice-Consul, or representative of the Central Government, was so executed and authenticated.
Now as per these sections, there is a presumption in favour of power of attorney, if it is executed in the abovesaid manners. In the present case, plaintiff has proved the power of attorney Ex.PW1/1 and Ex.PW1/2. As per Ex.PW1/1, it is issued by one Mr. Kinberly N. Van Vorrhis, Attorney in Fact for the plaintiff. This document was valid from 31.12.2019 till 15.02.2022. As per Ex.PW1/2, it is issued by one Mr. Kinberly N. Van Vorrhis, Attorney in Fact for the plaintiff. This document was valid from 15.02.2022 till 31.12.2024. These documents are duly notarized as per the provisions of State of Oregon USA. So, these are duly notarized and thus the abovesaid provisions of Evidence Act (BSA) is applicable. So, it is presumed that these POAs were properly executed. No documentary or other evidence has been led by the defendant to prove otherwise. So, defendant failed to rebut the presumption. So, it can be safely held that Sh. Narender Singh was duly authorized to represent the plaintiff in the present case. So, this issue is decided in CS (COMM) No. 4115/2021 Nike Innovate C V Vs. Pankaj Gupta Page 10 of 14 11 favour of plaintiff and against the defendant.
ISSUE NO. 2 to 8 Issue no. 2 Whether plaintiff is entitled for a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendant, its associates and agents, officer, employees, distributors, representatives and assigns from using the trademark "Nike" and "Swoosh logo" and any other registered "Nike marks" on socks and other accessories deceptively, identical and confusingly similar to the registered company? OPP Issue no. 3 Whether plaintiff is entitled for a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendant, its associates and agents, officer, employees, distributors, representatives and assigns from using the copyright vested in device/ logo of "Swoosh mark" and any other registered "Nike marks" on socks and other accessories in any form and manner and copyright identical and confusingly & deceptively similar to the device/ log of Swoosh mark or any other registered 'Nike marks' of the plaintiff? OPP Issue no. 4 Whether plaintiff is entitled for a decree of permanent injunction restraining defendant etc., from passing of the goods as that of the plaintiff's goods? OPP Issue no. 5 Whether the plaintiff is entitled for preliminary decree of rendition of accounts? OPP Issue no. 6 Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a final decree of rendition of accounts? OPP Issue no. 7 Whether plaintiff is entitled for delivery up of all the infringing finished and unfinished materials bearing the infringing and violative trademark/label of the plaintiff for the purpose of destruction and erasure? OPP CS (COMM) No. 4115/2021 Nike Innovate C V Vs. Pankaj Gupta Page 11 of 14 12 Issue no. 8 Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree of damages from the defendant? OPP 19 The onus to prove these issues were on plaintiff. From the perusal of Ex.PW1/4 to Ex.PW1/8, it appears that plaintiff is having various trademark in its favour. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the plaintiff invited the attention of this Court to the report of Ld. Local Commissioner Ex.PW3/A. As per this report/photographs, it appears that at the time of local commissioin, Ld. Local Commissioner found 309 items containing Swoosh Logo and Nike with Swoosh Logo on the infringed products being sold by the defendant. A perusal of the registered trademark of the plaintiff i.e. Nike and Swoosh Logo and the impugned trademarks used by the defendant, as placed on record by Ld. LC, shows that impugned used trademarks Nike and Swoosh Logo are identical to the registered trademarks of the plaintiff in all material particulars i.e. the style and an unwary customer can be easily misled and deceived by the said infringed trademarks "Nike and Swoosh Logo" and can be trapped in buying the infringed goods as that of the plaintiff. Therefore, it is clearly seen that defendant has adopted the impugned trademarks i.e. "Nike, Swoosh Logo"
which are visually, structurally and deceptively and confusingly similar to plaintiff's registered trademarks of plaintiff in respect of CS (COMM) No. 4115/2021 Nike Innovate C V Vs. Pankaj Gupta Page 12 of 14 13 identical goods which creates the same commercial impression.
20 From the perusal of the report of Ld. Local Commissioner, there appears to be recovery of substantial amount of infringed goods which is reflected from the superdarinama attached with the report. So, there is evidence on record that the defendant was dealing with the infringed goods in large quantities.
So, in these circumstances, plaintiff is able to make out a case that defendant was dealing in goods by infringing the trademarks of the plaintiff. In these circumstances, plaintiff made out a case for permanent injunction restraining these defendant in dealing, selling etc., of such goods.
21 As far as the rendition of account is concerned, no such evidence is led. However, there are report of Ld. Local Commissioner which shows that infringed goods are recovered from these defendant. Considering this, court can grant compensation to the plaintiff. So, accordingly, plaintiff is awarded compensation of Rs.1 lakh from defendants.
These issues are decided in these terms.
RELIEF 22 In view of the aforesaid issue wise discussions, the suit of the plaintiff is decided and following reliefs follows:-
CS (COMM) No. 4115/2021 Nike Innovate C V Vs. Pankaj Gupta Page 13 of 14 14(i) Defendant, his associates and agents, directors, officers, employees, distributors, franchisee, representatives and assigns on his behalf are restrained from using any impugned trade mark/label/colour combination which is identical to registered trade mark/ label/colour combination of plaintiff in any form and manner which are identical and/or confusingly or deceptively similar to trade marks/ logos of plaintiff "Nike, and Swoosh Logo", on any goods including apparels and other accessories, thereby infringing plaintiff's registered trade marks and copyright; and passing off its goods and business as that of the goods and business of the plaintiff.
(ii) Defendant is liable to pay damages of Rs.1 lakh to the plaintiff.
(iii) Defendants/plaintiff/superdar is directed to destroy the infringed goods within 15 days and affidavit in this regard shall be filed within 7 days thereafter in the court.
(iv) Cost of the suit is also awarded.
23 Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
24 Copy of judgment be issued to all the parties through email or hard copy be provided physically.
25 File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open court (Rakesh Pandit) on 19.03.2026 District Judge (Commercial Court)-13/ Central/Tis Hazari/Delhi CS (COMM) No. 4115/2021 Nike Innovate C V Vs. Pankaj Gupta Page 14 of 14