Delhi High Court trademark case

Delhi High Court Awards ₹8 Lakh to Puma in Trademark Infringement Suit Over Counterfeit Goods

by

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.

VCARE InfoTech Renames Itself as “Newgen IT Technologies,” Faces Legal Action from Newgen Software Over Trademark Infringement

by

In a significant development in the realm of intellectual property rights, VCARE InfoTech has found itself entangled in a legal dispute after rebranding itself as “Newgen IT Technologies,” despite being aware of the registered trademark held by Newgen Software Technologies Limited. The Delhi-based software solutions firm initiated legal proceedings, leading to the court granting an interim injunction against the use of the infringing name.

Trademark Dispute Sparks Legal Action

The conflict began when VCARE InfoTech, during the course of a business partnership, decided to change its corporate identity to “Newgen IT Technologies.” According to court documents, the company was fully aware of Newgen Software’s established brand identity and registered trademarks in the technology and software sectors.

Newgen Software, a globally recognized digital transformation solutions provider with decades of market presence, argued that the renaming constituted deliberate trademark infringement and was likely to cause confusion among customers, clients, and partners. The company filed a suit before a competent court seeking immediate injunctive relief to prevent VCARE from using the name.

Court Grants Interim Injunction

After examining the facts and submissions from both sides, the court ruled in favor of Newgen Software. It noted that VCARE InfoTech’s adoption of a deceptively similar name not only violated trademark laws but also indicated dishonest intent, especially since the company had acknowledged the plaintiff’s rights in the mark “Newgen.”

The court emphasized that trademark law protects both brand reputation and consumer interest, and such usage could mislead stakeholders into believing there was an association or endorsement by Newgen Software.

In its interim order, the court restrained VCARE InfoTech from using the name “Newgen IT Technologies” in any form—whether as part of its corporate identity, marketing materials, or domain names—until final adjudication of the case.

Acknowledgment of Trademark Proves Costly

One of the most critical aspects of the court’s reasoning was that VCARE InfoTech had prior knowledge of the “Newgen” trademark and its association with Newgen Software. This undermined any defense of unintentional infringement. Legal experts opined that this could amount to “willful infringement,” which may attract stringent penalties under Indian intellectual property law.

“Awareness of a registered trademark followed by the adoption of a deceptively similar name can significantly weaken the defense in any trademark case,” said an IP law expert based in Delhi. “Courts are generally inclined to protect well-established brands, especially when the risk of confusion is high.”

Implications for Business Partnerships and Rebranding

This case also underscores the need for due diligence during corporate rebranding, particularly during mergers, acquisitions, or partnerships. Businesses are advised to conduct comprehensive trademark clearance searches and seek legal opinions before adopting new names that may conflict with existing intellectual property.

Failure to do so can not only result in costly legal battles but also damage business reputation and operations, especially if a court-ordered injunction halts the use of a newly adopted identity.

Way Forward

The case is still pending final resolution. VCARE InfoTech, now legally barred from using the name “Newgen IT Technologies,” has yet to publicly respond to the court’s decision. Newgen Software, meanwhile, reiterated its commitment to protecting its intellectual property and maintaining brand integrity.

This legal episode serves as a critical reminder for businesses navigating the complex space of branding and trademarks: awareness of an existing mark does not excuse its infringement—and may, in fact, make matters worse.