Delhi District Court
Puma Se vs Sai Universal Shopping Ecom Pvt Ltd on 16 May, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. ANURAG SAIN, DISTRICT JUDGE
(COMMERCIAL COURT)-01, PATIALA HOUSE COURT
NEW DELHI
CS (COMM)436/2022
PUMA SE
PUMA Way 1,
Herzogenaurach, 91074
Germany
Also at:
42/A, Ground Floor, Khan Market
Opp. Gopal Mandir, New Delhi-110003 ... Plaintiff
VERSUS
Sai Universal Shopping Ecom Pvt. Ltd.
D-32, Ambika Building Vibhuti Khand
Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh- 226010
[email protected] ....Defendant
Appearance:
Plaintiff: Sh. Shakti Priyan Nair, Ld. Counsels for plaintiff
Defendant: None, Ex-parte
Date of institution : 20.05.2022
Date of reserving judgment : 16.05.2025
Date of pronouncement : 16.05.2025.
Judgment Under Order XIII-A and VIII Rule 10 of Code of Civil
Procedure.
1. By this order, I propose to decide an application under
Order XIII A and VIII Rule 10 read with Section 151 of the Code
of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred as 'CPC') filed by
plaintiff seeking summary judgment in favour of plaintiff and
against the defendant.
Digitally
signed by
ANURAG
ANURAG SAIN
SAIN Date:
2025.05.16 Page no.1 of 19
16:43:06
+0530
2. Brief facts giving rise to the application are that plaintiff
has filed the suit seeking reliefs of permanent and mandatory
injunction so as to restrain the defendant from infringing
trademark of the plaintiff and passing off goods as that of the
plaintiff and also relief for damages and rendition of accounts,
delivery up of all impugned material against defendant seeking
following reliefs:
a) A decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendant
its proprietors/partners/ directors, servants, agents, affiliates,
associates, stockiest, distributors from stocking, wholesaling,
supplying, selling, marketing, in any manner including online
sale or dealing in any other way, any goods including
garments, footwear/or any other products under the plaintiff
mark PUMA, logo and 'Form Strip Logo'
and or any other mark/logo which is identical and
similar to the plaintiff's mark PUMA, and logo
and 'Form Strip logo' which may amount to
infringement of the plaintiff's registered trademarks as
mentioned in para 12 of the plaint.
b) A decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendant
its proprietors/partners/ directors, servants, agents, affiliates,
associates, stockiest, distributors from stocking, wholesaling,
supplying, selling, marketing, in any manner including online
sale or dealing in any other way, any goods including
garments, footwear/or any other products under the plaintiff
mark PUMA, logo and 'Form Strip Logo'
and or any other mark/logo which is identical and
Digitally
signed by
ANURAG
ANURAG SAIN
SAIN Date:
2025.05.16
Page no.2 of 19
16:43:21
+0530
similar to the plaintiff's mark PUMA, logo and
'Form Strip Logo' which may amount to passing
off;
c) For disclosure of information by defendant about sale of the
total garments including t-shirts and footwear including
shoes, under the impugned mark PUMA with details of
payments received';
d) An order for delivery up of all finished and unfinished goods,
dies, blocks, labels, packaging materials and any other
printed material bearing the plaintiff's mark PUMA,
logo and 'Form Strip Logo' to the authorized
representative of the plaintiff for the purpose of
destruction/erasure/obliteration;
e) A decree for damages for a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- (four
Lakhs) be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against
Defendant;
f) Compensattory/punitive damages may also be passed in
favour o the plaintiff and against the defendant;
g) Order for costs of the proceedings.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff is a company
incorporated under the laws of European Community under the
laws of Germany. Ms. Sonu Kapoor being constituted attorney of
the plaintiff, is duly authorized to sign and verify pleadings and
institute the present suit on behalf of the plaintiff. It is averred in
the plaint that the plaintiff is marketing and selling its products in
India including in Delhi through its wholly owned subsidiary
Puma Sport India Pvt Ltd under its well known trademark PUMA
and . The plaintiff has also been supplying and carrying
on its business through its various stores at Delhi including stores
situated in Khan Market & Connaught Place. The plaintiff is also
promoting its products through website www.puma.com, through
an interactive website(s).
Digitally
signed by
ANURAG
ANURAG
SAIN
SAIN
Date:
2025.05.16
Page no.3 of 19
16:43:35
+0530
4. According to the plaintiff, plaintiff is one of the world's
leading sport brands designing, developing, selling and
marketing footwear, apparels & accessories but not limited to
track suits, Tshirts, shorts, polo shirts, Sport shoes, formal shoes,
slippers, Flip flops, slippers, Sandals, Bags, ladies purse, wallets,
smart / sport watches and other accessories and equipment of
highest quality. The trademark PUMA was coined way back in
1948 and was officially registered on 01.10.1948. It is averred
that the turn over and net sales of the plaintiff worldwide for the
period 2012-19 is running into crores of rupees. The plaintiff
mark PUMA is a valuable asset to the plaintiff business. The
plaintiff has spent huge sum of money on the advertisement and
sales of its products.
5. According to the plaintiff, due to its massive popularity,
since, it came into existence in 1948 and continuous and
exclusive use, the mark PUMA is synonym with every sports
today. The plaintiff is also registered proprietor of trademark
PUMA and its logos and variants in several classes viz 18, 25,
24, 09, 03, 16, 41, 28, 14, 35, in India as per details mentioned in
Para 12 of the plaint. The said registrations in favour of the
plaintiff are valid and subsisting and have full legal force and the
plaintiff has exclusive right to use the said mark in view of the
statutory right available with the plaintiff under the Trade Marks
Act, 1999. It is further case of the plaintiff that with the passage,
the plaintiff has built up unparallel reputation and goodwill and
by virtue of its presence worldwide, the plaintiff's mark and logo
come to exclusively associated with that of plaintiff's. It has
crossed the physical boundaries and have acquired trans-border
reputation in India. The plaintiff's trademark PUMA has been
Digitally
signed by
ANURAG
ANURAG SAIN
SAIN Date:
2025.05.16 Page no.4 of 19
16:43:49
+0530
declared as well- known trademark in India by trademark registry
and the same was published in Trademark Journal No. 1934,
30.12.2019.
6. According to the plaintiff, defendant is a company
incorporated under the provisions of Companies Act, 2013 and
having its registered office in Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh. Defendant
is engaged in the business of trading/supplying/marketing/selling
of apparels and shoes under the Plaintiff's mark PUMA
logo and form and Form Strip Logo through its website
www.indianq.com. without authorization/approval of the
plaintiff. The plaintiff has annexed the screenshots of the
Defendant's website in para 28 of its plaint.
7. It is further averred that plaintiff in the first week of
January 2022 came across the website of the defendant and
noticed that the defendant is selling various Puma Branded
apparels through its website namely www.indianq.com.
Thereafter on 6th January, 2022 a Puma branded T-shirt was
ordered from the defendant's website and after examining the
product and its quality were found to be counterfeit/fake.
8. It is averred that in order to file the extracts of the website
of the defendant, the plaintiff' representative visited the website
of the defendant, however the same was not active or operational.
The plaintiff was under impression that the defendant has shut
down its website and is no longer indulged in the counterfeit
activity of selling/supplying Puma branded apparels. However, in
Digitally
signed by the 2nd week of April, 2022 plaintiff was shocked to notice that
ANURAG
ANURAG SAIN
SAIN Date:
2025.05.16
16:44:05
Page no.5 of 19
+0530
the defendant's website www.indianq.com is active and the
defendant through its website is not only selling apparels under
the plaintiff's mark/logos but is also selling shoes under the
plaintiff's world-renowned mark/logos including 'Form Strip
Logo'.
9. According to plaintiff, defendant has copied the PUMA
logo and form and Form Strip Logo which is
clearly evident from the products being sold by the defendant.
The plaintiff submits that the adoption and use of the impugned
mark and logo by the defendant amounts to willful infringement
of the plaintiff's registration for the mark PUMA and its logos
within the meaning of Section 29 of Trade Marks Act, 1999.
10. It is averred that defendant unlawful adoption of an
identical mark and logos is a calculated act to cause loss and
injury to the plaintiff's goodwill and its reputation & business
and to dilute the distinctiveness of plaintiff's mark PUMA and its
logo. The loss and injury to the plaintiff's reputation being
caused/likely to be caused by such dilution is not capable of
being calculated in monetary terms.
11. Thus, the suit of the plaintiff.
12. Defendant was served with the summons of suit on
23.05.2022, but the defendant has neither appeared not filed its
written statement, thus his right to file written statement was
forfeited and he was proceeded exparte vide order dated
11.07.2022 by ld. Predecessor of this Court.
Digitally
signed by
ANURAG
ANURAG
Page no.6 of 19
SAIN
SAIN Date:
2025.05.16
16:44:26
+0530
13. I have heard ld. Counsel for the plaintiff and carefully
gone through the record. During the course of arguments, ld.
Counsel for the plaintiff submits that as per the instructions the
plaintiff foregoes his claim as regards to damages and is
confining his relief to the injunction only, as prayed by him in
his prayer clause and thus, the suit survives with the prayer 44 (a)
and 44 (b) only.
14. Vide this application, the plaintiff prays for summary
judgment in terms of Order XIII-A and Order VIII rule 10 CPC.
As per Order XIII-A CPC at least 30 days notice to the defendant
is required before fixing the suit for hearing on summary
judgment. In the present case, the defendant has already been
proceeded exparte vide order 11.07.2022. Thus summary
judgment can be passed on the basis of pleadings accompanied
by the statutory affidavits under the Commercial Courts,
Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of
High Courts Act, 2015 and the documents filed.
15. Order XIII-A of CPC provides mechanism for summary
judgment in Commercial disputes as per the detailed procedure
Digitally
contained in Order XIII-A. Order XIII-A is reproduced herein for
signed by
ANURAG
ANURAG
SAIN
SAIN
Date: Page no.7 of 19
2025.05.16
16:44:53
+0530
convenience:
"1. Scope of and classes of suits to which this Order applies. -
(1) This Order sets out the procedure by which Courts may
decide a claim pertaining to any Commercial Dispute without
recording oral evidence.
(2) For the purposes of this Order, the word "claim" shall
include-
(a) part of a claim;
(b) any particular question on which the claim (whether in
whole or in part) depends; or
(c) a counterclaim, as the case may be.
(3) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary, an application for
summary judgment under this Order shall not be made in a suit
in respect of any Commercial Dispute that is originally filed as
a summary suit under Order XXXVII.
2. Stage for application for summary judgment. - An applicant
may apply for summary judgment at any time after summons
has been served on the defendant:
Provided that, no application for summary judgment may be
made by such applicant after the Court has framed the issues in
respect of the suit.
3 Grounds for summary judgment - The Court may give a
summary judgment against a plaintiff or defendant on a claim
if it considers that -
(a) the plaintiff has no real prospect of succeeding on the claim
or the defendant has no real prospect of successfully defending
the claim, as the case may be; and
(b) there is no other compelling reason why the claim should
not be disposed of before recording of oral evidence.
4 Procedure. - (1) An application for summary judgment to a
Court shall, in addition to any other matters the applicant may
deem relevant, include the matters set forth in sub-clauses (a)
to (f) mentioned hereunder:-
Digitally
signed by
ANURAG
ANURAG SAIN
SAIN Date: Page no.8 of 19
2025.05.16
16:45:08
+0530
(a) the application must contain a statement that it is an
application for summary judgment made under this Order;
(b) the application must precisely disclose all material facts and
identify the point of law, if any;
(c) in the event the applicant seeks to rely upon any
documentary evidence, the applicant must,-
(i) include such documentary evidence in its application, and
(ii) identify the relevant content of such documentary
evidence on which the applicant relies;
(d) the application must state the reason why there are no real
prospects of succeeding on the claim or defending the claim, as
the case may be;
(e) the application must state what relief the applicant is
seeking and briefly state the grounds for seeking such relief.
(2) Where a hearing for summary judgment is fixed, the
respondent must be given at least thirty days' notice of:-
(a) the date fixed for the hearing; and
(b) the claim that is proposed to be decided by the Court at such hearing.
(3) The respondent may, within thirty days of the receipt of notice of application of summary judgment or notice of hearing (whichever is earlier), file a reply addressing the matters set forth in clauses (a) to (f) mentioned hereunder in addition to any other matters that the respondent may deem relevant:-
(a) the reply must precisely-
(i) disclose all material facts;
(ii) identify the point of law, if any; and
(iii) state the reasons why the relief sought by the applicant should not be granted;
(b) in the event the respondent seeks to rely upon any Digitally documentary evidence in its reply, the respondent must-
signed by ANURAG ANURAG SAIN SAIN Date:
2025.05.16 Page no.9 of 19 16:45:22 +0530
(i) include such documentary evidence in its reply;
and
(ii) identify the relevant content of such documentary evidence on which the respondent relies;
(c) the reply must state the reason why there are real prospects of succeeding on the claim or defending the claim, as the case may be;
(d) the reply must concisely state the issues that should be framed for trial;
(e) the reply must identify what further evidence shall be brought on record at trial that could not be brought on record at the stage of summary judgment; and
(f) the reply must state why, in light of the evidence or material on record if any, the Court should not proceed to summary judgment.
5. "Evidence for hearing of summary judgment. - (1) Notwithstanding anything in this Order, if the respondent in an application for summary judgment wishes to rely on additional documentary evidence during the hearing, the respondent must:-
(a) file such documentary evidence; and
(b) serve copies of such documentary evidence on every other party to the application at least fifteen days prior to the date of the hearing.
(2) Notwithstanding anything in this Order, if the applicant for summary judgment wishes to rely on documentary evidence in reply to the defendant's documentary evidence, the applicant must:-
(a) file such documentary evidence in reply; and
(b) serve a copy of such documentary evidence on the respondent at least five days prior to the date of the hearing.
Digitally signed by ANURAG ANURAG SAIN SAIN Date:
2025.05.16 Page no.10 of 19
16:45:37
+0530
(3) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary, sub-rules (1) and (2) shall not require documentary evidence to be:-
(a) filed if such documentary evidence has already been filed; or
(b) served on a party on whom it has already been served.
6. Orders that may be made by Court. - (1) On an application made under this Order, the Court may make such orders that it may deem fit in its discretion including the following:-
(a) judgment on the claim;
(b) conditional order in accordance with Rule 7 mentioned hereunder;
(c) dismissing the application;
(d) dismissing part of the claim and a judgment on part of the claim that is not dismissed;
(e) striking out the pleadings (whether in whole or in part); or
(f) further directions to proceed for case management under Order XV-A. (2) Where the Court makes any of the orders as set forth in sub-rule (1) (a) to (f), the Court shall record its reasons for making such order.
7. Conditional order. - (1) Where it appears to the Court that it is possible that a claim or defence may succeed but it is improbable that it shall do so, the Court may make a conditional order as set forth in Rule 6 (1) (b).
(2) Where the Court makes a conditional order, it may:-
(a) make it subject to all or any of the following conditions:-
(i) require a party to deposit a sum of money in the Court;
(ii) require a party to take a specified step in relation to the claim or defence, as the case may Digitally be;
signed by ANURAG ANURAG SAIN SAIN Date:
2025.05.16 16:45:48 Page no.11 of 19 +0530
(iii) require a party, as the case may be, to give such security or provide such surety for restitution of costs as the Court deems fit and proper;
(iv) impose such other conditions, including providing security for restitution of losses that any party is likely to suffer during the pendency of the suit, as the Court may deem fit in its discretion; and
(b) specify the consequences of the failure to comply with the conditional order, including passing a judgment against the party that have not complied with the conditional order.
8. Power to impose costs - The Court may make an order for payment of costs in an application for summary judgment in accordance with the provisions of sections 35 and 35A of the Code."
16. Careful perusal of Order XIII-A makes it clear that application for summary judgment may be filed by either party and at stage of the suit after issuance of summons but before the framing of issues. Under Rule 3 of the said Order Court may give summary judgment against the plaintiff or defendant on a claim in Commercial dispute, if court consider that plaintiff has no real prospect of succeeding on a claim or the defendant has no real prospect of successfully defending the claim. In this order, summary judgment may be passed without taking oral evidence. The purpose of Legislature is clearly to expedite the resolution of Commercial disputes in appropriate matters when there is no real prospects of succeeding in a claim or in defending a claim of Commercial dispute. Under Rule 6 of Order VI, court may passed various orders/judgments in different circumstances including the conditional order. Under Rule 8 of this Order, Digitally signed by Page no.12 of 19 ANURAG ANURAG SAIN SAIN Date:
2025.05.16 16:45:55 +0530 Court may impose the cost in accordance with the provisions of Section 35 and 35A of CPC.
17. The Commercial Courts Act 2015 has been enacted with the intent to improve efficiency and reduce delay in disposal of commercial cases. The relevant portion of the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 is reproduced hereinbelow:-
"to have a streamlined procedure which is to be adopted for the conduct of cases in the Commercial Courts and in the Commercial Divisions by amending the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, so as to improve the efficiency and reduce delays in disposal of commercial cases. The proposed case management system and provisions for summary judgment will enable disposal of commercial disputes in a time bound manner."
18. Amended Order XIIIA of CPC, as applicable to commercial disputes, enables the Court to decide a claim or part thereof without recording oral evidence. Order XIIIA of CPC seeks to avoid the long drawn process of leading oral evidence in certain eventualities. Consequently, the said provision enables disposal of commercial disputes in a time bound manner and promotes the object of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
19. The legislative intent behind introducing summary judgment under Order XIIIA of CPC is to provide a remedy independent, separate and distinct from judgment on admissions and summary judgment under Order XXXVII of CPC. To reiterate, the intent behind incorporating the summary judgment procedure in the Commercial Court Act, 2015 is to ensure Digitally signed by ANURAG ANURAG SAIN SAIN Date:
2025.05.16 Page no.13 of 19 16:46:02 +0530 disposal of commercial disputes in a time-bound manner. In fact, the applicability of Order XIIIA, CPC to commercial disputes, demonstrates that the trial is no longer the default procedure/norm.
20. The provisions relating to summary judgment which enables courts to decide claims pertaining to commercial disputes without recording oral evidence are exceptional in nature and out of the ordinary course which a normal suit has to follow. In such an eventuality, it is essential that the stipulations are followed scrupulously otherwise it may result in gross injustice. As pointed out above, a specific period of time has been provided during which an application for summary judgment can be made. That period begins upon the service of summons on the defendant and ends upon the court framing issues in the suit.
21. Rule 4(2) of Order XIIIA also requires that where a hearing for summary judgment is fixed, the respondent must be given at least thirty days' notice of the date fixed for the hearing and the claim that is proposed to be decided by the Court at such hearing. In the present case defendant chooses not to appear despite service of summons of the suit and thus the application under Order XIIIA CPC can be considered and summary judgment can be passed on the basis of pleading accompanied by the statutory affidavit and the documents filed under the Commercial Court Act. As has been held by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Glaxo Group Limited Vs. Aar Ess Remedies Private Limited and Ors., MANU/DE/2204/2017 decided on 27.07.2017.
Digitally signed by ANURAG ANURAG SAIN SAIN Date:
Page no.14 of 19 2025.05.16 16:46:08 +0530
22. In Laxmikant V. Patel vs. Chetanbhat Shah & Anr., AIR 2002 SCC 275, on the aspect of riding upon the goodwill of plaintiff and passing of, reliance can be placed upon para 10 of the judgment wherein it was observed that "a person may sell his goods or deliver his services such as in case of a profession under a trading name or style. With the lapse of time such business or services associated with a person acquire a reputation or goodwill which becomes a property which is protected by courts. A competitor initiating sale of goods or services in the same name or by imitating that name results in injury to the business of one who has the property in that name. The law does not permit any one to carry on his business in such a way as would persuade the customers or clients in believing that the goods or services belonging to someone else are his or are associated therewith. It does not matter whether the latter person does so fraudulently or otherwise. The reasons are two. Firstly, honesty and fair play are, and ought to be, the basic policies in the world of business. Secondly, when a person adopts or intends to adopt a name in connection with his business or services which already belongs to someone else it results in confusion and has propensity of diverting the customers and clients of someone else to himself and thereby resulting in injury.
23. It is well settled that if the plaintiff is able to show that its legal civil right is infringed by the defendant, the injunction can and should be granted, in its favour. Admittedly both the parties are engaged in the same business. The chances of likelihood of confusion cannot be ruled out in such a case, the same being very high.
Digitally
signed by
ANURAG
ANURAG SAIN
SAIN Date:
2025.05.16
16:46:16
Page no.15 of 19
+0530
24. In the case of Baker V. Master Printers Union of New Jersey, 47 USPQ 69 at 72 (D.N.J.1940), it was held that:
"The most successful form of copying is to employ enough points of similarity to confuse the public with enough points of difference to confuse the courts. Few would be stupid enough to make exact copies of another‟s mark or symbol."
25. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Parle Products (P) Ltd. vs. J.P. and Co., Mysore AIR 1972 SC 1359 has held as under:
"According to Karly's Law of Trade Marks and Trade (9th edition paragraph 838):
Two marks, when placed side by side, may exhibit many and various differences vet the main idea left on the mind by both may be the same. A person acquainted with one mark, and not having the two side by side for comparison, might well be deceived, if the goods were allowed to be impressed with the second mark, into a belief that he was dealing with goods which. bore tile same mark as that with which he was acquainted. Thus, for example, a mark may represent a game of football; another mark may show players in a different dress, and in very different positions, and yet the idea conveyed by each might be simply a game of football. It would be too much to expect that persons dealing with trade-marked goods, and relying, as they frequently do, upon marks, should be able to remember the exact details of the marks upon the goods with which they are in the habit of dealing. Marks are remembered rat her by general impressions or by some significant detail than by any photographic recollection of the whole. Moreover, variations in detail might well be supposed by customers to have been made by the owners of the trade mark they are already acquainted with for reasons of their own."
26. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in S. Syed Mohideen (Supra) Digitally signed by has held as under:
ANURAG ANURAG SAIN SAIN Date:
2025.05.16 Page no.16 of 19 16:46:22 +0530 "It is also well settled principle of law in the field of the trade marks that the registration merely recognizes the rights which are already pre-existing in common law and does not create any rights. This has been explained by the Division Bench of Delhi High Court in the case of Century Traders v. Roshan Lal Duggar Co., 1977 SCC online Del 50 in the following words:
"First is the question of use of the trade mark. Use plays an all important part. A trader acquires a right of property in a distinctive mark merely by using it upon or in connection with his goods irrespective of the length of such user and the extent of his trade. The trader who adopts such a mark is entitled to protection directly the article having assumed a vendible character is launched upon the market".
27. In the present case, the plaintiffs are the registered owner of the trademarks PUMA are engaged in the manufacturing, trade, marketing and sale of footwear, apparels & accessories but not limited to track suits, Tshirts, shorts, polo shirts, Sport shoes, formal shoes, slippers, Flip flops, slippers, Sandals, Bags, ladies purse, wallets, smart / sport watches and other accessories thereof. The trademark is duly registered under the Trade Marks Act 1999 in India with respect to goods of class 18, 25, 18, 24, 09, 03, 16, 41, 28, 14, 25, 28, 24, 18, 25, 35, 35, 25.
28. To substantial claim in respect of prayer (a) in the plaint, the plaintiff have placed on record documents viz photographs of impugned products, copy of plaintiff's company analysis report confirming defendant's products as counterfeit, internet download from trademark observing PUMA as well as known mark in India published in Trade Mark Journals No. 1934 dated 30.12.2019; copy of Certificate issued in legal proceedings, worldwide registration; sale invoices; internet downloaded history of ANURAG SAIN Digitally signed by ANURAG SAIN Page no.17 of 19 Date: 2025.05.16 16:46:28 +0530 PUMA, sale of PUMA products, Power of Attorney as well as Certificate under Section 65 B of Indian Evidence Act and Declaration u/o XI Rule 6 (3) of Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of the High Court Ordinance, 2015.
29. The copies of trademark certificates along with documents filed by the plaintiff shows that plaintiff is registered owner of trademark/logo PUMA. Thus, it is established that plaintiff is the owner of the trademark. Section 28 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, provides that valid registration of the trade mark shall confer on the registered owner of the trademark exclusive right to use the trademark in relation to the goods or services in respect of which trademark is registered. It empowers the owner of trademark to obtain relief with regard to infringement of the trademark in the manner provided under the Act. Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 provides that a registered trade mark is infringed by a person, who, not being a registered proprietor or a person using by way of permitted use, uses in the course of trade, a mark which is identical or deceptively similar, to the trademark in relation to the goods or services in respect of which the trademark is registered and in such manner as to render the use of the trademark likely to be taken as being used as a trademark. Sub-Section (2) of Section 29 further provides that a trademark is infringed by using a mark which is identical or similar with a registered trademark to an extent that it is likely to cause confusion on the part of public that it has an association with the registered trademark. Further, Sub-Section (3) of Section 29 provides a presumption in respect of a mark that is likely to create confusion on the part of public on account of identity with Digitally signed by ANURAG ANURAG SAIN SAIN Date:
2025.05.16 16:46:34 Page no.18 of 19 +0530 the registered trademark and identity of the goods or services covered by such registered trademark.
30. Thus, from the pleadings, there is irrefutable evidence to show that defendant is dealing with the counterfeit goods bearing the trademark and logo of the plaintiff. Such infringement if left unchecked would also be not in interest of consumer, in as much as the consuming public may be purchasing counterfeit products and paying higher price presuming the same to that of plaintiff's brand which need to be protected. Thus, the examination of all the aforesaid unrebutted material leads to inescapable conclusion that plaintiff is entitled to a decree of permanent decree of injunction.
31. In view of the above discussion, application under Order XIII-A of CPC filed by plaintiff is allowed and suit is decreed in terms of the reliefs sought in paragraph 44 (a) and (b) in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant.
32. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
33. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Pronounced in the open Court on this 16th Day of May, 2025 (Anurag Sain) District Judge (Commercial Courts)-01 New Delhi District, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi Digitally signed by ANURAG ANURAG SAIN SAIN Date:
2025.05.16 16:46:42 +0530 Page no.19 of 19