Delhi District Court
Puma Se vs Hs Enterprises on 19 December, 2023
IN THE COURT OF SH. AJAY KUMAR JAIN:
DISTRICT JUDGE COMMERCIAL COURT 03 - SOUTH EAST
DISTRICT SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI.
CS (COMM) No. 378/2019
PUMA SE
PUMA Way 1,
Herzogenaurach, 91074 Germny
Also at:
G-4, South Extension I
Main Market, Ring Road
Block G, New Delhi 110049. ........ Plaintiff
VERSUS
1. HS Enterprises
House no. 79, Opposite New Maszid,
Deep Vihar, Street No.2,
Phamra Pind, Bahadur K Road,
Ludhiana 141003
2. Yogesh Kumar
(proprietor of Shri Ram Collection)
Gharapan market,
Near Kamla Lohtia College,
Ludhiana 141008
3. Harish Kumar
(Proprietor of Chawla Trader)
Main Road Neela Jhanda Gurudwara
Hargobind Nagar
Ludhiana 141008 .....defendants
Date of Institution : 07.12.2018
Date when final arguments heard : 08.12.2023
Date of Judgment : 19.12.2023
CS (COMM) 3782019 PUMA SE Vs. HS Enterprises & Ors Dt. 19.12.2023 pg. 1 of 6
JUDGMENT
1. Present is a suit seeking decree for permanent injunction, restraining the infringement of trade mark, passing-off, unfair trade competition, rendition of accounts, delivery-up and damages.
2. The brief facts necessary for disposal of this case are that the plaintiff is a company duly registered under the laws of European Community respectively under the laws of Germany and is engaged in the business of manufacturing one of the most sophisticated sports wear and athletic shoes in the world. It is claimed that Puma is proud sponsor of more than 30 national soccer teams and is marketing and selling its products in India through its wholly owned subsidiary Puma Sports India Limited, a company existing in India under the Indian Companies Act. The suit has been instituted to protect the plaintiff's right in well known trademark Puma and Puma Logo in use since 1948 in Germany. It is claimed that defendants are engaged in the manufacturing and sales of garments and other products including trousers, tags etc. and has been selling and supplying garments bearing the mark Puma and Puma Logo without approval of the plaintiff. The plaintiff came to know this fact in November, 2018 and hence, filed this suit seeking injunctions, damages and rendition of accounts etc.
3. On application of the plaintiff U/o 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC, the defendants by an ex-parte ad-interim injunction order were restrained from using the trademark of the plaintiff. A local commissioner was also appointed to seize and seal the impugned goods from the premises of the defendants. The local commissioner visited the premises of the CS (COMM) 3782019 PUMA SE Vs. HS Enterprises & Ors Dt. 19.12.2023 pg. 2 of 6 defendants i.e. HS Enterprises, Yogesh Kumar (proprietor of Shri Ram Collection), Harish Kumar (proprietor of Chawla Trader) and recovered 310 counterfeit t-shirts and 900 counterfeit branded bags of Puma from defendant no.1 HS Enterprises, 150 counterfeit branded lowers of Puma and 100 counterfeit t-shirts of Puma from defendant no.2. The Local Commissioner also recovered 2000 counterfeit Puma branded tags, 2800 counterfeit Puma branded zips and 2000 counterfeit Puma branded labels. Ld. Local Commissioner seized the same and handed over to defendants on supardari.
4. In pursuance to the summons, defendant no.3 appeared on 06.02.2019 and filed the written statement. Defendant nos. 1 and 2 were proceeded ex parte vide order dated 06.02.2019. Thereafter, the defendant no.3 did not appear and was proceeded ex parte on 25.11.2022. PW1 led the ex parte PE.
5. Ld. counsel for the plaintiff submitted that the Local Commissioner found sufficient infringing material at the premises of the defendants and the defendants did not appear. The plaintiff has proved that plaintiff is the Proprietor of the mark Puma and Puma Logo and the defendants have no right to use this mark. The defendants have illegally used the trademark of the plaintiff which resulted in misappropriation of reputation and goodwill of the plaintiff, resulting in loss and damages to the plaintiff. It has been prayed that plaintiff is entitled to damages and cost of the suit.
6. Heard. Record perused.
7. The testimony of PW1 remained unrebutted and uncontroverted.
CS (COMM) 3782019 PUMA SE Vs. HS Enterprises & Ors Dt. 19.12.2023 pg. 3 of 6 There is nothing on record to discredit the testimony of PW1. PW1 categorically stated that the defendants are selling the counterfeit shorts/t-shirts and other garments under the mark and logo of the plaintiff. The Local Commissioner also recovered the counterfeit products of the plaintiff from the premises of the defendants.
8. In these facts and circumstances, the suit is decreed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants. The defendants and their servants, agents are restrained from manufacturing, trading, selling, marketing, passing-off, offering for sale through online portals or otherwise or in any other way dealing in goods of the plaintiff under the trademark Puma and Puma Logo, which amounts to infringement/passing off of plaintiff's registered trademark. The defendants are further directed to deliver-up all finished and unfinished goods, dyes, blocks and labels bearing Puma to the plaintiff, the defendants are directed to remove Puma logo or deceptively similar logo from e-commerce websites.
9. As far as the relief of rendition of accounts is concerned, in an ex-parte case, the same cannot be granted in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court given in case titled as Imaging Marketing Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s. Green Accessories through its proprietor & Anr. passed in CS (Comm.) 564/2020 dated 21.03.2022.
10. The Delhi High Court Intellectual Property Rights Division Rules, 2022 provide guidance on the manner in which the damages could be calculated in such case. Rules 20 of the IPD Rules, 2022 is set out below:
CS (COMM) 3782019 PUMA SE Vs. HS Enterprises & Ors Dt. 19.12.2023 pg. 4 of 6 "20. Damages/Account of profits: A party seeking damages/account of profits, shall give a reasonable estimate of the amounts claimed and the foundational facts/account statements in respect thereof along with any evidence, documentary and/or oral led by the parties to support such a claim. In addition, the Court shall consider the following factors while determining the quantum of damages:
(I) Lost profits suffered by the injured party;
(ii) Profits earned by the infringing party;
(iii) Quantum of income which the injured party may have earned through royalties/license fees, had the use of the subject IPR been duly authorized; (iv) The duration of the infringement;
(v) Degree of intention/neglect underlying the infringement;
(vi) Conduct of the infringing party to mitigate the damages being incurred by the injured party;
In the computation of damages, the Court may take the assistance of an expert as provided for under Rule 31 of these Rules."
11. In the present case, it is not known that since when the defendants were using the impugned mark on the counterfeit products and their income and the duration of their income. Considering the recovery of counterfeit products by the Local Commissioner. damages for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) each is granted in favour of the plaintiff and against defendants for infringement of trademark of the plaintiff.
CS (COMM) 3782019 PUMA SE Vs. HS Enterprises & Ors Dt. 19.12.2023 pg. 5 of 6
12. Plaintiff shall also be entitled to the cost of the suit. Copy of the judgment be sent to all the parties by electronic mode, if available or otherwise.
13. Decree sheet be prepared. File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced on even date (Ajay Kumar Jain)
on 19.12.2023 District Judge, Comm-03
South-East, Saket Courts, Delhi
CS (COMM) 3782019 PUMA SE Vs. HS Enterprises & Ors Dt. 19.12.2023 pg. 6 of 6