Delhi High Court Grants Protection To PUMA’s ‘Leaping Cat’ Mark, Awards Rs. 10 Lakh Damages

The Delhi High Court yesterday decreed a suit in favour of Puma SE, holding that the defendant’s large-scale and brazen manufacturing of footwear bearing plaintiff’s 'leaping cat' mark/logo called for an injunction.

Plaintiff-Puma SE, a German company dealing in footwear, apparel, accessories, etc., had filed the suit seeking injunction against defendant/Ashok Kumar, alleging that the latter was engaged in manufacturing and sale of counterfeit “PUMA” products.

It was claimed that the plaintiff had acquired knowledge of defendant selling counterfeit products bearing its mark in 2022. Subsequently, its investigation had revealed that the defendant was supplying the infringing products to Uttar Pradesh, Delhi and Haryana.

During the pendency of the suit, the defendant entered appearance but failed to file a written statement.

An interim injunction was granted in the plaintiff’s favour, observing that the defendant’s use of the plaintiff’s mark was not only likely to cause deception to an unwary consumer but also dilution thereof.

In addition, a Local Commissioner (LC) was appointed, who filed a report that was read in evidence by the court.

“…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.”, observed the court.

Relying on the report as well as the plaint, Justice Prathiba M. Singh concluded that the defendant was running a full-scale manufacturing operation of counterfeit “PUMA” shoes.

“…most customers would not be able to distinguish between the Plaintiff’s and Defendant’s products”, the court said.

It further remarked,

“The use of ‘PUMA’ mark and logo by the Defendant on inferior quality products would not only result in violation of the Plaintiff’s statutory and common law rights but will also lead to erosion of the brand equity of the Plaintiff and result in dilution of the marks. Such infringement if left unchecked would also be contrary to the consumer’s interests”.

To assess the quantum of damages to be awarded, Justice Singh referred to Rule 20 of the Delhi High Court Intellectual Property Rights Division Rules, 2022 and culled out two factors, i.e. (i) profit earned by infringing party, and (ii) duration of income.

Based thereon, damages to the tune of Rs.10 lakhs and costs of Rs.2 lakhs were awarded to the plaintiff. The court further directed counterfeit goods seized by the LC to be handed over to the plaintiff’s representative.

A leading sporting brand today, “PUMA” was first used and registered as a mark by the plaintiff in 1948. In India, the mark and the ‘leaping cat’ device were registered by it in 1977 and 1986 respectively.

Significantly, the plaintiff has been supplying its products to India under its umbrella brand “PUMA” since 1980s.

Mr. Ranjan Narula and Mr. Shashi P. Ojha, Advocates appeared for plaintiff

Case Title: Puma SE v. Ashok Kumar

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1010

Click Here To Read/Download Order