Delhi High Court: A plaint was filed by PUMA SE (plaintiff) seeking injunctive relief being aggrieved by the fact that the defendant had, in its BERKINS brand of shoes, imitated the design of the plaintiff’s RS-X 3D series, to render the two shoes virtually indistinguishable to the eye of an average consumer. C. Hari Shankar, J., granted injunction against defendant 2 and directed the defendants to pay punitive damages, in addition, of ₹ 50,000/- to the plaintiff.
The plaintiff is a company established and incorporated in Germany that sells its goods in India through its wholly-owned subsidiary Puma Sports Pvt. Ltd., under its distinctive PUMA logo. The present dispute is concerned with the RS-X 3D series of sports shoes manufactured and sold by the plaintiff. The plaint asserts that the plaintiff entered the Indian market, with these shoes in November 2018. The defendants have neither chosen to enter appearance nor filed a written statement by way of response to the plaint, thus, proving the plaintiff’s goodwill and reputation.
The main grievance of the plaintiff is that defendant 2 has, by adopting a trade dress for its BERKINS brand range of shoes which is nearly identical to the plaintiff’s RS-X range of shoes, sought to pass off its products as those of the plaintiff.
The design of the plaintiff and defendant is respectively as follows:
The Court after examining both the design of the shoes noted that Defendant 2 has deliberately used a colour scheme, an overall design and look and appearance, for its BERKINS range of shoes which imitates the colour scheme, design and appearance of the plaintiff’s RS-X 3D range of shoes.
The Court concluded that inasmuch as the plaintiff has also placed on record sufficient material to establish the goodwill and reputation commanded in the Indian market by the said RS-X range of shoes, the facts of the plaint make out a case of passing off, by the defendant, through its BERKINS range of shoes, of the RS-X range of shoes of the plaintiff. There is every likelihood of a customer mistaking the products of the defendant for that of the plaintiff, given the strikingly similar appearance of the two products.
Thus, the Court decreed against Defendant 2, perpetually injuncting Defendant 2 and all others acting on its behalf from manufacturing or selling any shoes bearing the impugned design or any other design which is deceptively like the design of the plaintiff’s RS-X 3D range of shoes.
[PUMA SE v. Girish Vohra Owner and Proprietor of Girish Enterprises, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 4533, decided on 27-07-2023]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Mr. Ranjan Narula, Mr. Shashi P. Ojha, Ms. Aishani Singh and Ms. Shivangi Kohli, Advocates for the Plaintiff.
