Delhi District Court
Nike Innovate C.V vs Sandeep Vohra on 13 May, 2026
IN THE COURT OF SH. MUKESH KUMAR, DISTRICT JUDGE (COMM.)-11
CENTRAL, THC, DELHI
CS Comm. No. 824/2024
CNR No. DLCT01-011539-2024
Nike Innovate C.V
having its principal office at
One Bowerman Drive
Beaverton, Oregon
97005-6453,
United Sates of America
through its authorised representative
Sh. Narendra Singh
E-1, LGF, Lajpat Nagar,
New Delhi-110024.
..............Plaintiff
Vs.
Sh. Sandeep Vohra
owner of 'Fabulous Fashion'
Ground Floor and First Floor,
Block No. 8, House No. 173-A,
New Aruna Nagar Colony,
Majnu ka Tila, West Delhi.
...........Defendants
Date of Institution : 30.07.2024
Date of Final Arguments : 06.05.2026
Date of Judgment : 13.05.2026
Judgment
CS Comm No. 824/2024 Page 1 of 12.
Nike Innovate C. V. Vs. Sandeep Vohra.
1.This suit has been filed by plaintiff for reliefs of permanent injunction qua infringement of Trademark and Copyright of Nike apart from relief of Rendition of Account, Damages and Delivery Up.
Plaintiff's Case:
2. The plaintiff is a limited partnership organised under the Laws of Netherlands having its principal office at United States of America and is engaged in manufacturing, sale and distribution of sportswear, shoes and other accessories across the world. It is further stated that the plaintiff through Power of Attorney dated 19.01.2022 has authorised Sh. Narendra Singh to institut, sign, verify and epose in all matters in the Courts of general jurisdiction, civil, criminal and economic Courts in connection with the protection of trademarks and other objects of intellectual property with all power given to the plaintiff. The plaintiff has a global operation and transacts its business under the trademark NIKE and logos all over the globe. It is further stated that the plaintiff is the proprietor of NIKE in most of the countries, including India and rightful owner of the trademarks "Nike", "Nike Shox", "Nikefeit", "Nike+Cardiokm" and logos "Nike Air" (hereinafter referred to as 'Nike Marks'). It is further stated that the in India the Plaintiff operates through its wholly owned subsidiary Nike India Private Limited, a company registered under Companies Act, 1956. It is furtheer stated that plaintiff operates in India through various offices at Bangalore, Mumbai, Delhi and Gurgaon and other cities and the plaintiff carries its business in Delhi through its manufacturers, distributors, franchises and has exclusive showrooms in Karol Bagh, Connaught Place, Khan Market and other areas of Delhi. It is further stated that plaintiff is the owner of several trademarks in several countries CS Comm No. 824/2024 Page 2 of 12.
Nike Innovate C. V. Vs. Sandeep Vohra.
of the world including India which are registered in India under class 25 of the Trademarks Act, 1999. It is further stated that the plaintiff incurs huge amount of money in advertising and promotion of its various products under "Nike Marks" across the globe. It is further stated that "Nike Marks" have their own figurative distinctiveness on account of their unique design effect, sign, graphics, style as a whole and are artistic works under the definition of Copyright Act, 1957 owing to their unique design effect and style. The said logos are original and pristine creation of the plaintiff. The use of "Nike marks" are prominent and essential feature of the plaintiff's products and are recognized widely by the consumers. It is averred that owing to superior quality of plaintiff's products, huge sales and wide publicity undertaken by the plaintiff using the Nike marks, the same have become extremely popular and that trademark NIKE and Swoosh logo (Nike marks) are firmly etched in the minds of the people in the trade and the consumers alike.
3. It is further stated that during the investigation carried out by the investigator of the plaintiff, it was dicovered that defendant is engaged in the business of selling/marketing/distributing/storing products using the falsified trademark 'Nike' and 'swoosh logo' (Nike Marks) from its premises situated at Block No. 8, House No. 173 A, New Aruna nagar Colony, Majnu Ka Tila, Delhi-110054. It is further stated that the investigator purchased a pair of infringing shoes bearing the trademark "Nike' and 'Swoosh logo' (Nike Marks) from the defendant and defendant refused to issue the invoice/bill for purchased shoes. It is further stated that after analysing the infringed product, plaintiff company found numerous similarities and discrepancies in the product which are mentioned in detail in para 24 of the plaint. It is further stated that the defendant has also used the artistic work vested in'Nike' and 'Swoosh CS Comm No. 824/2024 Page 3 of 12.
Nike Innovate C. V. Vs. Sandeep Vohra.
logo' on its products which tantamount to infringement of copyright under the Copyright Act. Thus aggrieved by infringement and passing of its trademark 'Nike Marks', the Plaintiff has filed the present suit praying that:-
i) To pass a decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendant, its associates and agents, officers, employees, distributors, representatives and assigns from using the trademark 'Nike' and 'Swoosh logo' and/or any other registered 'Nike 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 'Nike' and/or 'Swoosh logo' and/or any other registered 'Nike Marks' of the plaintiff, thereby infringing plaintiff's registered trademarks.
ii) To pass a decree for permanent injunction restraining the Defendant, its associates and agents, officers, employees, distributors, representatives and assigns from using the copyright vested in 'Nike' and 'Swoosh logo' and /or any other 'Nike Marks' of the plaintiff on shoes and other accessories in any formand manner and/or copyright identical and/or confusingly or deceptively similar to 'Nike' and 'Swoosh logo' and/or any other registered 'Nike Marks' of the plaintiff, thereby infringing plaintiff's copyright.
iii) To pass a decree for permanent injunction restraining the Defendant, its associates and agents, officers, employees, distributors, representatives and assigns from using any trademark and copyright vested in the 'Nike' and 'Swoosh logo' and /or any other registered 'Nike 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 Nike' and 'Swoosh logo' and/or any other registered "Nike Marks" of the CS Comm No. 824/2024 Page 4 of 12.
Nike Innovate C. V. Vs. Sandeep Vohra.
plaintiff, thereby passing off its goods and business as that of the goods and business of the plaintiff.
iv) To pass a decree of permanent injunction directing the defendant to immediately take down the Instagram page-
https://instagram.com/epickickx?igsh=MzRIODBiNWFIZA== and all links, posts, listings, pictures etc. directly and indirectly associated with the defendant for sale the infringing shows or any other product bearing trademark and copyright vested in the 'Nike' and 'Swoosh logo' and/or any other registered 'Nike marks' of the plaintiff on shoes and other accessories in any form and manner of the plaintiff company and passing off their products and business as that of plaintiff company.
v) To pass an order directing defendant to deliver up of all the impugned finished and unfinished goods bearing the impugned and violative trade mark/label or any other identical and/or confusingly or deceptively similar trademark/label including labels, display boards, sign board, trade literatures and goods etc. to the plaintiff for the purpose of destruction and erasure.
vi) To pass a decree for rendition of accounts or in the alternate damages for loss of business on account of sale of infringing goods be granted in favour of plaintiff and against defendant and against Defendant.
vii) To pass a decree of punitive damages in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
viii) Grant an order for the costs of proceedings.
4. The suit was initially filed by plaintiff against an unknown person Ashok Kumar. Pursuant to application Under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC and under Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC, Ld. Predecessor of this Court vide order CS Comm No. 824/2024 Page 5 of 12.
Nike Innovate C. V. Vs. Sandeep Vohra.
dated 31.07.2024 had granted ex-parte stay in favour of Plaintiff restraining the defendant, its associates, agents, directors, officers, employees, distributors, franchisees, representatives and assign from using 'NIKE' and 'Swoosh logo' and/or any other registered "NIKE marks" of the Plaintiff or any other identical or deceptively similar mark on any products including shoes and other accessories in any manner and also from using any indicia whatsoever to show any association or affiliation or connection of the defendant or its products with the plaintiff company. The Court also appointed a Local Commissioner vide the said order dated 31.07.2024. The Ld. Local Commissioner visited the premises of the Defendant on 02.08.2024 and submitted her report on 08.08.2024. In her report Local Commissioner given the name of the person found engaged in the infringing activities. On basis of the report of Ld. Local Commissioner, plaintiff filed an application Under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC r/w Section 151 CPC for impleading person namely Sandeep Vohra defendant to the suit which was allowed vide order dated 22.10.2024 and Sh. Sandeep Vohra was allowed to be impleaded as defendant in place of Sh. Ashok Kumar in the suit.
5. It is a matter of record that defendant could not be served at given address through ordinary process and were ultimately served through whatsapp. Defendant did not appear before the Court to contest the suit by filing Written Statement. Accordingly, opportunity of defendant to file written statement was closed vide order dated 08.07.2025 and he was also proceeded ex-parte.
6. In order to prove its case plaintiff examined its Authorized Representative Mr. Narendra Singh as PW-1. He has reiterated the averments made in plaint in his affidavit Ex.PW-1/A. He has relied upon documents as under :
CS Comm No. 824/2024 Page 6 of 12.
Nike Innovate C. V. Vs. Sandeep Vohra.
i) Printout of the business register extract from Netherlands Chambers of Commerce is Ex.PW1/1.
ii) Copy of Power of Attorney dated 19.01.2022 is Ex.PW1/2 (OSR).
iii) Copy of Power of Attorney dated 11.02.2025 is Ex.PW1/3 (OSR).
iv) Copies of Legal Proceeding Certificates bearing trademark No. 346173, 453268, 509574, 949269, 526647 and 526650 under Class 25 are Ex.PW1/4 to Ex.PW1/9 (OSR).
v) Screenshot of defendant's instagram page is Ex.PW1/10.
vi) Photographs of the infringing products of the defendant is Ex.PW1/11.
vii) Photographs of the original products of the plaintiff is Ex.PW1/12.
viii) Affidavit under Order 11 Rule 6 CPC read with Section 63 (4) (c) of Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 is Ex.PW1/13.
ix) Report of Ld. Local Commissioner is Ex.PW1/14.
PW 1 also deposed that he has e-filed the contempt petition on 10.11.2025 under Section 2 (B) & Section 12 of Contempt of Court Act read with Order 39 Rule 2A CPC and with Section 151 CPC against the defendant for breaching the order dated 31.07.2024 of this Hon'ble Court.
7. Plaintiff also examined its investigator Mr. Narendra Singh as PW-1. He proved his affidavit as Ex.PW2/A. PW 2 proved the affidavit of investigation dated 27.07.2024 as Ex.PW2/1.
8. Plaintiff also examined the Ld. Local Commissioner as PW 3. PW 3 deposed that she is a practicing Advocate and was appointed as Local Commissioner vide Order dated 31.07.2024. She further deposed that she visited the premises mentioned in the said Order of the Court in a John Doe suit. She tender her search and seizure LC report dated 02.08.2024 CS Comm No. 824/2024 Page 7 of 12.
Nike Innovate C. V. Vs. Sandeep Vohra.
and same is exhibited as Ex. PW3/A ( 32 pages) and bears her signatures at point A on each page. During the course of proceedings, on the identification of the AR for the Plaintiff, I seized 7,060 counterfeit shoes (in 85 gunny bags). One gunny bag containing packaging material with counterfeit logo of the Plaintiff was also prepared. She handed over a total 86 gunny bags to the owner of the outlet M/s Fabulous Fashion namely Sh. Sandeep Vohra on superdari as per directions contained in the judicial order and executed a Superdarinama which bears her signatures as well as signatures of Mr. Sandeep Vohra. She further deposed that she separately seized sample packaging material in one small packet and had instructed the AR of the Plaintiff to take the same in his custody. PW3 further deposed that she is not sure if the A.R of the plaintiff actually took the custody of same or not and these facts are not mentioned in her report.
9. No other witness was examined by the plaintiff and plaintiff evidence was closed vide order dated 12.12.2025.
10. I have heard the arguments addressed by Ld. Counsel for plaintiff.
Written submissions were also filed on behalf of Plaintiff.
11. In view of Order 26 Rule 10 (2) CPC and the judgment M. L Brother LLP Vs Maheshkumar Bhuralal Tanna 2022 (91) PTC 270 (Del), the settled legal position that emerges is that the report of the Local Commissioner can be treated as evidence in the suit where it is not challenged by any party. Accordingly in the present case the report of the Local Commissioner and the contents therein can be relied upon by the court as evidence as the same is unchallenged.
12. The relevant observations made by Ms. Kohika Gaur, the Local Commissioners is as under :
CS Comm No. 824/2024 Page 8 of 12.
Nike Innovate C. V. Vs. Sandeep Vohra.
1. That the undersigned has been appointed as a Local Commissioner vide Your Lordships Order dated 31.07.2024 to visit the premises of the Defendant i.e. Block No. 08, House No. 173-A, New Aruna Nagar Colony, Majnu Ka Tila, Delhi 110054 and to take into custody all the impugned goods including other incriminating material like stationary, packing material, cartons, containers, display boards, sign boards, advertising material, dies or blocks, finished, unfinished, packed, unpacked impugned goods or any other documents, wrapper, etc. bearing trademark/label or any other identical with or deceptively similar to the plaintiff's trademark/label.
4. That on reaching the aforesaid premises the undersigned alongwith SI Ajay Kumar, PS Timarpur met with Mr. Sandeep Vohra (Aadhar No. 801109281137) who identified himself to be the owner of the said shop. The ground floor of the said premises was running as a shoes shop and the first floor was a godown.
5. That thereafter, the undersigned supplied the copy of the Order dated 31.07.2024 alongwith the copy of the plaint to Mr. Sandeep Vohra, owner of the said shop at the premises and the sam was explained to him. (Copy of the Order dated 31.07.2024 and the Aadhar Card of the owner is attached herewith and marked as Annexure
- A).
7. That on search and inspection of the said premises the undersigned found many goods i.e. shoes bearing the infringing trademark as per the name and logo as mentioned in this Hon'ble Court Order-dated 31.07.2024. the said goods were seen both on the ground floor on display as well as the godown for storing stocks.
8. That the infringing goods and material are being seized from the above stated premises of the defendant and are being sealed under my seal and signatures in gunny bags and an Inventory List of the same has been prepared and attached herewith and is marked as (Annexure - B).
CS Comm No. 824/2024 Page 9 of 12.
Nike Innovate C. V. Vs. Sandeep Vohra.
9. That in compliance of Your Lordships Order dated 31.07.2024, the undersigned has photographed and videographed the whole premises as well as complete proceedings. The above stated photographs are attached herewith and marked as (Annexure - C).
10. That as per this Hon'ble Court Order dated 31.07.2024, the undersigned is releasing the seized (sealed and signed) infringing goods and materials, which are packed in seperate gunny bags as per the Inventory List, on superdari to the owner Mr. Sandeep Vohra (Aafhar No. 801109281137) with an undertaking that he will produce the seized infringing goods as and when directed by this Hon'ble Court and the goods will be kept in safe custody till then. (Copy of the original Superdarinama duly signed is attached herewith and marked as Annexure - D).
13. Ld. Local commissioner counted the counterfeit goods, prepared two separate inventories on the spot, seized material and thereafter placed the counterfeit items recovered in 84 gunny bags and stitched and sealed them with her signatures. The seized goods were later handed over to Sh. Sandeep Vohra, defendant. The original inventory lists, superdarinama and photographs of the counterfeit goods form part of the report of the Ld. LC. As per the inventories prepared by the Ld. Local Commissioner, 7060 pieces of goods recovered i.e 3530 pairs were recovered which were placed in gunny bags. The report dated 08.08.2024 submitted by Ld. LC and perusal of the photographs of infringed goods annexed with it clearly reveals that defendants were dealing in infringed goods bearing trademark of the plaintiff. For the purpose of damages, plaintiff has relied upon the inventory prepared by the Ld. LC and PW-1 Commissioner. The PW-1 Ms. Narendra Singh Singh, AR of plaintiff has given calculation of damages in his evidence vide affidavit Ex. PW-1/A as under :
"43. I state that Defendant has never appeared before this Hon'ble Court and neither filed any document CS Comm No. 824/2024 Page 10 of 12.
Nike Innovate C. V. Vs. Sandeep Vohra.
pertaining to his accounts, and in such circumstances, Plaintiff is claiming damages against the Defendant. I state that for reference, I have attached a screenshot of the Plaintiff's website, which provides the original Manufacturer's Retail Price (MRP) of the original pair of shoes which is marked as MARK 'A'. I state that for the purpose of damages, Plaintiff relies on the 7,060 pieces (3,530 pairs) of shoes which were found and seized from the premises of the Defendant which is as follows:
3,530 pairs of shoes X Rs. 3,995/- per pair = Rs. Rs.1,41,02,350/- (One Crore Forty One Lakhs Two Thousand Three Hundred Fifty Only)".
14. As per the submissions of Ld. Counsel for plaintiff the counterfeit products are copies or duplicate products and plaintiff has assessed the value of one paid @ Rs.3,995/- which can not be value of duplicate product when the original products are easily available in the market for Rs. 3,000/- to Rs. 4,000/-. In such circumstances, the value of one paid of show is presumed Rs. 1,000/- being duplicate product. In view of the given sales figure of the plaintiff and considering the documents placed on record, I consider it appropriate to grant a decree of damages in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants for a sum of Rs. 35,30,000/- (3,530 x Rs. 1,000/-) apart from costs of the suit.
15. As no reply to the contempt petition has been filed and defendant did not appear to contest the suit and plaintiff is already compensated for the seized goods and the Court has awarded the damages of Rs. 35,30,000/-
CS Comm No. 824/2024 Page 11 of 12.
Nike Innovate C. V. Vs. Sandeep Vohra.
against the seized articles. In these circumstances, no further order is required and contempt petition is also disposed off.
16. Defendant being failed to contest the suit, the testimony of the plaintiff's witnesses have remained unchallenged and unrebutted. There is nothing on record to disbelieve the unrebutted testimony of the plaintiff's witnesses or to doubt the authenticity and veracity of the documents exhibited and proved on record. From the unrebutted testimony of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 and the documents proved , I am satisfied that the plaintiff has been able to prove its case. In view of my above findings plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent injunction and in view of law cited by Ld. Counsel for plaintiff plaintiff is also entitled to compensatory and punitive damages.
Relief.
17. In view of my above discussion, the present suit is decreed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant in terms of prayer clauses (a) to (d) of the plaint with compensatory and punitive damages to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/-. A decree in the sum of Rs. 35,30,000/- on account of damages sustained by the plaintiff due to loss of sale, reputation and goodwill as well as dilution of plaintiff's trademark is passed in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant subject to payment of requisite Court Fees. Cost of the suit is awarded in favour of the plaintiff. Decree sheet be drawn accordingly. File be consigned to Record Room.
Digitally signed by MUKESH KUMAR Announed in the open Court MUKESH
KUMAR
Date:
2026.05.14
Dated : May 13, 2026 15:36:16
+0530
(Mukesh Kumar)
District Judge, Commercial Court -11
Central District, THC, Delhi.
CS Comm No. 824/2024 Page 12 of 12.
Nike Innovate C. V. Vs. Sandeep Vohra.