Delhi High Court Awards ₹7 Lakh As Costs And Damages To 'New Balance' In Trademark Infringement Suit

Update: 2024-11-05 06:45 GMT
Click the Play button to listen to article
story

The Delhi High Court has recently awarded Rs. 7 lakh as costs and damages to sports footwear and apparel brand “New Balance” in a trademark infringement suit filed by it against a manufacturer.Justice Mini Pushkarna decreed the suit in favour of New Balance and concluded that Pulkit Khubchandani, the defendant, had infringed the its registered trademark. Khubchandani's company, Kiran...

Your free access to Live Law has expired
Please Subscribe for unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments, Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.

The Delhi High Court has recently awarded Rs. 7 lakh as costs and damages to sports footwear and apparel brand “New Balance” in a trademark infringement suit filed by it against a manufacturer.

Justice Mini Pushkarna decreed the suit in favour of New Balance and concluded that Pulkit Khubchandani, the defendant, had infringed the its registered trademark.

Khubchandani's company, Kiran Shoe Company, was engaged in the business of manufacturing, marketing and selling footwear bearing the marks N Device, K Device and 550. It offered for sale footwear throughout the country, including, in Delhi, through his own website, through e-commerce platforms such as Amazon, Flipkart and third-party business listing websites such as, IndiaMart, and JustDial etc.

In its suit, New Balance alleged that Khubchandani was engaged in counterfeiting of its products since 2015.

Khubchandani's counsel submitted that his client had already stopped dealing in goods bearing the infringing marks of New Balance. However, the counsel appearing for New Balance pressed for costs and damages.

Noting that no plausible justification or explanation was given by Khubchandani as to why the trademarks „N‟ or „550‟ were adopted, the Court said:

“An ordinary consumer, having average intelligence and without minute examination on the background of the defendant, is likely to be confused that the defendant has some association or connection with the plaintiff. Thus, use of the plaintiff‟s marks by the defendant gives an unfair advantage to the defendant and is detrimental to the distinctive character or repute of the plaintiff‟s registered trademark.”

It concluded that Khubchandani had no plausible justification for adopting New Balance's trademark, other than to ride upon the latter's immense reputation and goodwill.

Title: NEW BALANCE ATHLETICS, INC v. PULKIT KHUBCHANDANI

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1199

Click here to read order


Full View


Tags:    

Similar News