Delhi District Court
Adidas Ag vs Sandeep Vohra on 2 April, 2025
BEFORE THE COURT OF SH. SURINDER S. RATHI, DISTRICT JUDGE
(COMM.)-11, CENTRAL, THC, DELHI
CS Comm. No.828/2024
Adidas AG
(A Company registered in Germany)
Having its office at:
Adi-Dasseler Strasse 1
Herzogenaurach-91074, Germany
Also At:
Adidas India Marketing Pvt. Ltd.
Office No.6, 2nd Floor, Sector B,
Pocket No.7, Plot No.11, Vasant
Kunj, New Delhi-110070
Through its AR Narendra Singh
At: E-1, LGF, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi-110024. ..........Plaintiff
Vs.
Sandeep Vohra
Block No.8, House No.173-A,
New Aruna Nagar Colony,
Majnu Ka Tila, Delhi-110054 .........Defendant
Date of Institution : 30.07.2024
Date of Final Arguments : 02.04.2025
Date of Judgment : 02.04.2025
Decision : Decreed
Judgment
1.This suit is filed by plaintiff company for decree of permanent and mandatory injunction against infringement and passing off of their registered trademark "Adidas", "Three Stripes" and "Trefoil" logos apart from related reliefs of delivery up, rendition of account and damages for above violations. This suit was initially filed as a John Doe suit.
Case of the Plaintiff
2. Case of the plaintiff as per plaint originally filed in the Court is that it is a company registered under laws of Germany and is engaged in manufacture and CS Comm. No.828/2024 Page 1 of 13 Adidas AG Vs. Sandeep Vohra sale of sports wear and sports accessories all over the world. Plaintiff is owner of trademark Adidas, Three Stripes logo and Trefoil for India. The plaintiff is a world leader in sportswear since 1920 and the Three Stripes trademark was devised and adopted by its founder Adolf Dassler. Their merchandise with Adidas and other trademarks are available in 160 countries and they started business in India in 1989 through their wholly owned Indian subsidiary Adidas India Marketing Private Ltd. It is pleaded that Adidas is a well-known trademark with cross-border reputation. Adidas has showrooms and franchise outlets all over India. Adidas has impressive sales figures of 21218 million Euros in 2017 with a gross profit of 10703 million Euros. Adidas also has registration of trademarks in other European and South Asian Countries. The Adidas Trademarks, Three Stripes logo and Trefoil are registered with Registrar of Trademark in India under classes 9, 14, 18, 25, 28, 35 and 99.
3. Plaintiff incurred huge expenditure in advertising their products and have a list of leading Brand Ambassadors like Sachin Tendulkar, Virat Kohli, Virender Sehwag, Ashish Nehra and Sania Mirza to name a few.
4. In this john doe suit plaintiff has pleaded that in the first week of July 2024 plaintiff came to know that defendant is engaged in the busines of stocking, selling, marketing and distributing products using falsified trademark of Adidas, performance logo, Three Stripes, Trefoil individually and in combination from his premises at H.No. 173-A Block 8 New Aruna Nagar Colony, Majnu Ka Tila, Delhi-110054. Plaintiff got an investigation carried out and a test purchase of a pair of shoes was carried out without invoice. The plaint is silent if the john doe seller issued any invoice or not. The plaintiff has inserted two pictures one of the shoes purchased from john doe defendant and the other one is original Adidas shoes. It is pointed out that defendant is also selling mercandise through the Instagram handle which is reproduced hereunder for ready reference:
CS Comm. No.828/2024 Page 2 of 13Adidas AG Vs. Sandeep Vohra
5. Plaintiff has also added a comparative table showing the difference between the original product of the plaintiff and the one purchased from the john doe defendant. For ready reference the same is reproduced as under:
CS Comm. No.828/2024 Page 3 of 13Adidas AG Vs. Sandeep Vohra Original Shoe Infringing Shoe (Plaintiff's Product) (Defendant's Product)
1. The security label attached to the There is no security label attached to product is properly fixed and contains the product.
"adidas" logo with article no. and bar coe same as the label affixed on the box of the product.
2. Every product contains a label fixed on The infringing product also contains the inner side of the tongue, which a printed label on the inner side of contains a security code which is the tongue of the shoe, however, it unique for every individual product. does not contain correct information and unique security code.
3. The box of every product contains The infringing products are sold complete information of every product without boxes. individually. The information contained are:
a) Name of the commodity
b) Article Name
c) Colour
d) Net Quantity
e) Maximum Retail Price
f) Size
g) Date of Manufacturing
h) Namd and Address of Importer & Customer Care Contact Details
i) Two-dimensional bar code
4. The genuine Adidas product is made in The infringing adidas product is Indonesia made in Vietnam as per the label on the inner side of the tongue of the shoe.
5. The "adidas" and "Performance Logo" The "adidas" and "Trefoil Logo"
have been neatly engraved on the upper have been shabbily engraved on the tongue of the shoe. upper tongue, back end of the shoe as well as on the back of the shoe base.
6. The in-sole of the shoe has a neatly The in-sole of the shoe has a engraved 'END PLASTIC WASTE' shabbily engraved adidas with logo. slogan alongwith logo.
6. It is pleaded that the defendant is using identical and deceptively similar marks which resembles the plaintiff's registered marks with an aim to pass off his products as plaintiff's products and that his products are of inferior quality. This is resulting in counterfeiting of plaintiff's products but is also causing CS Comm. No.828/2024 Page 4 of 13 Adidas AG Vs. Sandeep Vohra huge monetary loss to the plaintifff apart from dilution of goodwill and reputation of the plaintiff's mark.
7. Territorial jurisdition of this Court is invoked on the ground that the address of the john doe defendant is part of Central District. Specified value of the suit is said to be Rs.5 lakhs. With these pleas suit in hand was filed with following prayers before this Court on 30.07.2024:
Prayer:
a) Grant an order for permanent injunction thereby restraining the defendant, its associates and agents, officers, employees, distributors, representatives and assigns from using the trademark Adidas and/or 'Performance Logo', 'Three Stripes', 'Trefoil' and/or any other registered 'Adidas Marks' of the plaintiff on shoes and other accessories in any form and manner and/or trademarks identical and/or confusingly or deceptively similar to the trademark 'adidas and/or device/logo of 'Three Stripes', 'Performance Logo' and/or Trefoil and/or any other registered adidas marks of the plaintiff, thereby infringing plaintiff's registered trademarks;
b) Grant an order for permanent injunction thereby restraining the defendant, its associates and agents, officers, employees, distributors, representatives and assigns from using the copyright vested in device/logo of 'Three Stripes', 'Performance Logo', and/or 'Trefoil' and/or any other 'Adidas Marks' of the plaintiff on shoes and other accessories in any form and manner and/or copyright identical and/or confusingly or deceptively similar to the device/logo of 'Three Stripes', 'Performance Logo' and/or Trefoil and/or any other adidas marks of the plaintiff, thereby infringing plaintiff's copyright;
c) Grant an order for permanent injunction thereby restraining the defendant, its associates and agents, officers, employees, distributors, representatives and assigns from using the trademark and copyright vested in the 'adidas' and/or device/logo of 'Three Stripes', 'Performance Logo', and/or 'Trefoil' and/or any other 'Adidas Marks' of the plaintiff on shoes and other accessories in any form and manner and/or copyright identical and/or confusingly or deceptively similar to the trademark 'adidas' and/or device/logo of 'Three Stripes', 'Performance Logo' and/or Trefoil and/or any other registered "adidas marks" of the plaintiff, thereby passing off his goods and business as that of the goods and business of the plaintiff;
d) Grant an order for permanent injunction directing the defendant to immediately take down the Instagram page-https://www.instagram.com/epickick?
igsh=MzR1ODBiNWFIZA== and all links, posts, listings, pictures etc. directly and indirectly associated with the Defendant for sale the infringing shoes or any other product bearing trademark and copyright vested in the 'adidas' and/or device/logo of 'three stripes', Performance Logo', and/or 'Trefoil' and/or any other 'Adidas Marks' of the plaintiff on shoes and other accessories in any form and manner of the Plaintiff Company infringing the trademark and copyright of the Plaintiff Company and passing off their products and business as that of the plaintiff company and further disclose the complete details (incluiding addresses and contact details) of its sellers selling infringing products of the Plaintiff Company.
e) Grant an order for permanent injunction thereby restraining the defendant, its associates and agents, officers, employees, distributors, representatives and assigns and CS Comm. No.828/2024 Page 5 of 13 Adidas AG Vs. Sandeep Vohra anyone associated with them from displaying/selling any products bearing any trademark and copyright vested in the 'adidas' and/or device/logo of 'Three Stripes', 'Performance Logo', and/or 'Trefoil' and/or any other 'Adidas Marks' of the plaintiff on shoes and other accessories in any form and manner on any social media platform or on any e-commerce platforms in any form and manner and/or trademark or copyright identical and/or confusingly or deceptively similar to the mark 'adidas' and/or device/logo of 'Three Stripes', 'Performance Logo' and/or Trefoil and/or any other "adidas marks" of the plaintiff and/or any other mark of the Plaintiff, thereby infringing the trademark, copyright of the Plaintiff and passing off his goods and business as that of the goods and business of the plaintiff;
f) Grant an order for ad-interim ex-parte temporary injunction thereby restraining the defendant, its associates and agents, officers, employees, distributors, representatives and assigns from using the trademark and copyright vested in 'adidas' and/or device/logo of 'Three Stripes', 'Performance Logo', and/or 'Trefoil' and/or any other registered 'Adidas Marks' of the plaintiff in any form and manner which are identical and/or confusingly or deceptively similar to the trademark 'adidas' and/or device/logo of 'Three Stripes', 'Performance Logo' and/or Trefoil and/or any other registered "adidas marks" of the plaintiff on shoes and other accessories or any other goods, thereby infringing Plaintiff's registered trademark, copyright and passing off its goods and business as t hat of the Plaintiff.
g) Grant an order for delivery up of all the impugned finished and unfinished materials bearing the impugned and violative trade mark/label or any other identical and/or confusingly or deceptively similar trade mark/label including labels, display boards, sign board, trade literatures and goods etc. to the plaintiff for the purposes of destruction and erasure;
h) For an order to disclose the name of all other persons who are engaged in manufacturing, stocking and retail business of infringing goods bearing the 'adidas marks' and using any indicia whatsoever to show any association or affiliation or connection of the defendant or its products with the plaintiff;
i) For an order to provide a complete discovery of any and all documents and information relating to any and all transaction concerning the infringement of the trademarks and copyright of the plaintiff and preserve all documents and other evidence in their possession relating to the subject matter of the instant suit;
j) Grant a decree for rendition of accounts and loss of business on account of sale of infringing goods by the defendant, in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant for infringing the trademarks and copyright of the Plaintiff company;
k) Grant an order of appointment of Local Commissioner under Order 26 Rule 9 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 at an appropriate stage, directing the Local Commissioner to search and to inspect the premises of the Defendant and seize all infringing apparels and other accessories bearing the trademark, 'adidas', and/or 'Three Stripes' 'Performance Logo', and/or Trefoil and/ or any other registered 'adidas marks'of the Plaintiff used in similar manner and/or in a manner identical or confusingly or deceptively similar to the trademark adidas and/or device/logo of 'Three Stripes','Performance Logo', and/or Trefoil and/or any other registered 'adidas marks' of the plaintiff and to open the lock and door of the manufacturing unit/godown/warehouse or any other place, if any, where the defendant is stocking and keeping the spurious and infringing shoes and other accessories;
l) Pass a decree of punitive damages against the defendant;
m) Grant an order for the costs of the proceedings;
CS Comm. No.828/2024 Page 6 of 13Adidas AG Vs. Sandeep Vohra
n) Pass any other or further order(s) which Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case in favour of the Plaintiff Company and against the Defendant.
8. Upon filing of the suit exparte ad inteirm injunction was granted to the plaintiff by Ld. Predecessor on 30.07.2024. Also a commission was issued for search and seizure of counterfeit products.
9. Summons of the suit was also served upon the defendant through LC. Search and seizure was carried out on 02.08.2024 during which 1680 pieces of shoes carrying counterfeit trademark of Adidas were found. During the proceedings Ld. LC found that the premises is run by one Sh. Sandeep Vohra. Consequently, plaintiff moved an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC and Sh. Sandeep Vohra was added as sole defendant who was running the outlet by the name M/s Fabulous Fashion.
10.After service defendant entered appearance on 18.02.2025 through Ms. Sutapa Das, Advocate. His right to file WS was closed on 17.12.2024 as no WS was filed within 120 days.
11.Out of the pleadings, following notional issues were framed by this Court on 17.12.2024:
Notional Issues:
i. Whether Plaintiff is entitled to permanent injunction against defendant and his subjects to injunct them from using the trademark label 'Adidas' 'Three Stripes', 'Performance Logo', logo of 'Trefoil' and any other registered 'adidas marks' as prayed? (OPP) ii. Whether Plaintiff is entitled to permanent injunction against defendant and his subjects to injunct them from using the copyright vested in device/logo of "Three Stripes", Performance Logo, logo of 'Trefoil' and any other registered 'adidas marks' in violation of plaintiff's copyright as prayed? (OPP) iii. Whether plaintiff is entitled to decree of permanent injunction against defendant and his subjects restraining them from passing off the goods of plaintiff's registered trademark 'Adidas', Three Stripes, Performance Logo and logo of 'Trefoil' as prayed?(OPP) iv. Whether Plaintiff is entitled to permanent injunction against defendant and his subjects to injunct them from using, selling, solicitising, displaying and advertising products using the trademark and copyright vested in 'Adidas', Three Stripes, Performance Logo and logo of 'Trefoil' as prayed? (OPP) CS Comm. No.828/2024 Page 7 of 13 Adidas AG Vs. Sandeep Vohra v. Whether plaintiff is entitled to decree of delivery up of finished and unfinished goods apart from dressing material in violation of the above trademark?(OPP) vi. Whether plaintiff is entitled to decree of rendition of accounts of profits earned by defendant in violation of plaintiff's above trademark?(OPP) vii. Whether plaintiff is entitled to damages?(OPP) viii.Relief.
12.Evidence in this case was ordered to be recorded before Ld. LC as per protocol created by this Court under Order 18 Rule 4 CPC read with Order 15A Rule 6(l) and (o) CPC as applicable to Commercial suits. Evidence was recorded before Ld. LC Ms. Abhirati Gupta, Advocate appointed by this Court for the sake of timely disposal of this case.
13.To prove its case plaintiff company examined PW1 Narendra Singh, its AR.
Vide his affidavit Ex.PW1/A he deposed on the lines of plaint and exhibited following documents:
i. Copy of Certificate of Incorporation dated 31.03.2015 along with its translation is Ex. PW-1/1;
ii. Copy of Power of Attorney dated 05.11.2019 in favour of Narendera Singh is Ex.PW-1/2;
iii. The Legal Proceedings in respect of trademark registration no.352655 is Ex.PW-1/3; iv. The Legal proceedings in respect of trademark registration No.511874 is Ex.PW-
1/4;
v. The Legal proceedings in respect of trademark registration No.538067 is Ex.PW-
1/5;
vi. The Legal proceedings in respect of trademark registration No.826207 is Ex.PW-
1/6;
vii. The Legal proceedings in respect of trademark registration No.2634480 is Ex.PW-
1/7;
viii. The Legal proceedings in respect of trademark registration No.932043 is Ex.PW-
1/8;
ix. The Legal proceedings in respect of trademark registration No.1800353 Ex.PW-1/9; x. The Legal proceedings in respect of trademark registration No.2983183 Ex.PW-
1/10;
xi. The Legal proceedings in respect of trademark registration No.932941 is Ex.PW-
1/11; ;
xii. The Legal proceedings in respect of trademark registration No 2958438 is Ex.PW-
1/12;
xiii. The Renewed Legal Proceeding Certificate for the Trademark bearing no.538067 is Ex.PW-1/13;
xiv. The affidavit of the Investigator is Ex.PW-1/14; xv. The screenshot of defendant's Instagram page is Ex.PW-1/15;CS Comm. No.828/2024 Page 8 of 13
Adidas AG Vs. Sandeep Vohra xvi. The affidavit under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is Ex.PW-1/16; xvii. The report of the Local Commissioner is Ex.PW-1/17; xviii. The photographs of the Infringing goods of the bearing Trademarks identical and/or deceptively and confusingly similar to the "adidas marks" of the Plaintiff is Ex.PW- 1/18;
xix. The photographs of the original product of the Plaintiff are Ex.PW-1/19.
14.None has appeared on behalf of defendant for cross-examining this witness.
15.Second witness is PW2 Abhinav Garg, Advocate who carried out the search and seizure procedure. He deposed and proved his LC report as Ex.PW-2/A.
16.PW3 is Om Prakash, hired investigator of the plaintiff company who deposed about the test purchase.
17.None has appeared for defendant to cross-examine this witness.
18.I have heard arguments of Ms. Aastha Sharma, Ld. Counsel for plaintiff.
None appeared on behalf of defendant to argue the case. I have perused the case file carefully.
19.Now I shall dispose of issues framed in this case.
Notional Issues:
i. Whether Plaintiff is entitled to permanent injunction against defendant and his subjects to injunct them from using the trademark label 'Adidas' 'Three Stripes', 'Performance Logo', logo of 'Trefoil' and any other registered 'adidas marks' as prayed? (OPP) ii. Whether Plaintiff is entitled to permanent injunction against defendant and his subjects to injunct them from using the copyright vested in device/logo of "Three Stripes", Performance Logo, logo of 'Trefoil' and any other registered 'adidas marks' in violation of plaintiff's copyright as prayed? (OPP) iii. Whether plaintiff is entitled to decree of permanent injunction against defendant and his subjects restraining them from passing off the goods of plaintiff's registered trademark 'Adidas', Three Stripes, Performance Logo and logo of 'Trefoil' as prayed?(OPP) iv. Whether Plaintiff is entitled to permanent injunction against defendant and his subjects to injunct them from using, selling, solicitising, displaying and advertising products using the trademark and copyright vested in 'Adidas', Three Stripes, Performance Logo and logo of 'Trefoil' as prayed? (OPP) v. Whether plaintiff is entitled to decree of delivery up of finished and unfinished goods apart from dressing material in violation of the above trademark?(OPP) vi. Whether plaintiff is entitled to decree of rendition of accounts of profits earned by defendant in violation of plaintiff's above trademark?(OPP) CS Comm. No.828/2024 Page 9 of 13 Adidas AG Vs. Sandeep Vohra
20.While opening her submissions Ld. Counsel for plaintiff has impressed upon the Court that plaintiff has a well-known trademark and is duly registered in India for "Adidas", "Three-Stripes" and "Trefoil". It is pleaded that the suit in hand was filed because plaintiff came to know that John Doe defendant was carrying out manufacturing and sales of infringing material at H.No. 173-A Block 8, New Aruna Nagar Colony, Majnu Ka Tila, Delhi-110054. It is argued that the plaintiff was granted ex-parte stay by this Court and a substantial quantity of infringing material was seized from the above premises of both the defendants. The report of LC is exhibited as Ex.PW2/A.
21.Plaintiff's case has remained unrebutted, uncontroverted and uncontested as defendants choose not to contest the suit claim. Plaintiff has discharged the onus of proving these issues.
Issue No.7 and 8:
vii. Whether plaintiff is entitled to damages?(OPP) viii. Relief.
22.For the purpose of assessing the damages plaintiff has argued in the evidence that the price of the original Adidas shoes starts from Rs.6,999/- onwards and as compared to the same, the evidence is led that the plaintiff company suffered huge loss. No specific evidence filed or led in support of this claim. The same is assessed at Rs.1500/- per pair of shoes.
23.Calculating the loss of sales for one month, the damages is quantified qua defendant Sandeep Vohra as under:
Defendant Sandeep Vohra Particulars of Price of Original Quantity Discovered Total Cost Products Product during the Local Commission Shoes Rs.1,500/- 1680 pieces/840 pairs Rs.12,60,000/-
The value of stocks for 1 month would be Rs.12,60,000/- x 2 =Rs.25,20,000/-.CS Comm. No.828/2024 Page 10 of 13
Adidas AG Vs. Sandeep Vohra
24.Ld. Counsel for plaintiff relied upon case titled Sandisk LLC and Ors. VS B- One Mobile and Ors, 2019 Latest Caselaw 1942 Del wherein in a similar case, counterfeit memory devices infringing the trade mark Sandisk was seized and similar cause of loss was allowed for three months by taking into consideration actual sales and value of stock for three months. The relevant portion of said judgement is reproduced hereinbelow:
"19. Keeping in view the pleadings, documents as well as evidence on record, this Court is also of the view that the defendants are using the registered trade mark Sandisk of the plaintiffs and its product packaging to sell counterfeit products with a view to trade upon and benefit from the reputation and goodwill of the plaintiff's mark and pass off its services as that of the plaintiffs.
20. Consequently, the allegation that the trade mark Sandisk, SanDisk logo and red frame logo used by defendant's amounts to infringement of plaintiffs' trademark is correct. The use of the plaintiffs mark by the defendant's is bound to cause incalcu- lable losses, harm and injury to the plaintiffs and immense harm to the public in general.
25.In the above cited case, in Para 23, Hon'ble High Court had refused to grant damage of Rs. 1 crore as punitive damages to Sandisk. The relevant portion of said judgement is reproduced hereinbelow:
"23. However, keeping in view the judgments of this Court in Super Cassettes In- dustries Private Limited VS. HRCN Cable Network Manu/DE/3094/2017 : 2017 (72) PTC [Del and in Hindustan Unilever Limited Vs. Reckitt Benckiser India Lim-
ited, Manu/DE/0353/2014: 2014(57) PTC 495 [Del] [DB], this Court is of the opinion that the plaintiffs are not entitled to any punitive damages."
26.The case of the plaintiff has practically remained uncontroverted, unrebutted and unchallenged. On the basis of pleadings, evidence led and the documents exhibited plaintiff has discharged the onus of proving this issue. These issues are answered in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant.
27.Plaintiff has been successful in satisfying the court that the product seized is violative of plaintiff's copyright and trademark. In the light of above, these issues are answered in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant. As far as relief of the permanent injunction is concerned, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed with cost as under:
CS Comm. No.828/2024 Page 11 of 13Adidas AG Vs. Sandeep Vohra
a) Plaintiff is granted permanent injunction and defendant Sandeep Vohra, his associates, agents, officers, employees, distributors, representatives and assigns by restraining them from using the trademark 'Adidas' and/or 'Performance Logo' Three Stripes, Trefoil and/or any other registered 'Adidas Marks' of the plaintiff on shoes and other accessories in any form and manner and/or trademark identical and/or confusingly and deceptively similar to the registered trademark 'Adidas', Trefoil and/or 'Performance Logo', Three Stripes and/or any other registered 'Adidas marks' of the plaintiff company thus infringing the registered trademark of plaintiff company.
b) Plaintiff is granted permanent injunction and defendant Sandeep Vohra, his associates, agents, officers, employees, distributors, representatives and assigns by restraining them from using the copyright vested in 'Adidas' and/or 'Performance Logo' Three Stripes, Trefoil and/or any other registered 'adidas marks' of the plaintiff on shoes and other accessories in any form and manner and/or copyright identical and/or confusingly and deceptively similar to 'Adidas', Trefoil and/or 'Performance Logo', Three Stripes and/or any other registered 'Adidas marks' of the plaintiff company thus infringing the registered copyright of plaintiff company.
c) Plaintiff is granted permanent injunction and defendant Sandeep Vohra, his associates, agents, officers, employees, distributors, representatives and assigns by restraining them from using the trademark and copyright vested in the 'Adidas' and/or 'Performance Logo' Three Stripes, Trefoil and/or any other registered 'adidas marks' of the plaintiff on shoes and other accessories in any form and manner and/or trademark identical and/or confusingly and CS Comm. No.828/2024 Page 12 of 13 Adidas AG Vs. Sandeep Vohra deceptively similar to the registered trademark 'Adidas', Trefoil and/or 'Performance Logo', Three Stripes and/or any other registered 'Adidas marks' of the plaintiff company and are injuncted from passing off goods and business of plaintiff company.
28.Plaintiff's lawyer's fees is assessed as Rs.25,000/-. Decree sheet shall be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Digitally signed by SURINDER SURINDER S RATHI S RATHI Date:
2025.04.05 16:17:08 +0530 (SURINDER S. RATHI) District Judge Commercial Court-11 Central District, THC Delhi/02.04.2025 CS Comm. No.828/2024 Page 13 of 13 Adidas AG Vs. Sandeep Vohra