The Delhi High Court has awarded ₹8 lakh in damages to global sportswear giant PUMA SE in a trademark infringement case against a seller of counterfeit products. The court also issued a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from using Puma’s registered trademarks.
⚖️ Court Decision
Justice Saurabh Banerjee, presiding over the case, held that the defendant had willfully violated Puma’s trademark rights by selling fake products bearing identical marks. The court observed that the imitation was not accidental but a deliberate attempt to deceive consumers.
The court noted:
“The products being sold by the defendant are counterfeit, carrying the same logos, marks, and branding, which clearly shows the intent to ride upon the reputation of the plaintiff.”
Since the defendant failed to appear or submit any response despite several notices—especially after February 2024—the case proceeded ex parte.
🔗 Read full judgment coverage on LiveLaw
🛑 Counterfeiting and Consumer Deception
The court emphasized that Puma’s trademarks are well-known globally and have established significant goodwill and consumer trust in India. The defendant, by selling goods with identical marks in the same trade channels, violated the Trade Marks Act, 1999, and engaged in unfair competition.
This judgment aims to set a precedent for stricter action against counterfeiters who infringe on the rights of established brands and mislead Indian consumers.
“This is not a mere case of passing off; it is a case of outright counterfeiting,” the court held.
💰 Damages and Penalty
The High Court awarded Puma ₹8 lakh as compensation, citing the following reasons:
- The damage to the brand’s reputation.
- The loss of genuine sales and business.
- The need to deter such unlawful conduct.
The court rejected symbolic damages and instead granted substantial monetary relief, reinforcing the seriousness of trademark violations.
🧾 Background of the Case
Puma filed the lawsuit after discovering the unauthorized sale of counterfeit Puma products by a local trader. The company sought:
- A permanent injunction.
- Damages for trademark infringement.
- Disclosure of profits earned from fake goods.
Despite several summonses and notices, the defendant remained absent, prompting the court to decide based on the material available.
🔍 Legal Significance
This case highlights India’s growing judicial commitment to protecting IP rights, especially for well-known trademarks. Courts are increasingly awarding higher damages to deter counterfeiting, sending a clear signal to violators.
A similar ruling by the Delhi High Court in March 2025 also awarded ₹11 lakh in damages to Puma in a separate counterfeit case, showing judicial consistency in protecting brand owners.