Delhi High Court: A suit was filed by Birkenstock IP GmbH (plaintiff), a German limited liability company operating in India through its wholly owned subsidiary Birkenstock India Pvt. Ltd., seeking permanent injunction against the defendants to restrain them from infringing its intellectual property specifically its trademarks, copyrights, and registered designs related to its well-known BIRKENSTOCK brand of footwear. Saurabh Banerjee, J., granted an ex parte ad interim injunction in favour of the plaintiff, restraining the defendants from manufacturing, selling, storing, importing, exporting, or dealing in any products bearing the plaintiff’s registered marks or deceptively similar marks, including trade dress, shape marks, logos, packaging, or any other infringing material.
Birkenstock, part of a group of companies established as early as 1774, is a globally renowned manufacturer and marketer of footwear sold under its distinctive BIRKENSTOCK mark. The company holds several Indian trademark registrations across a wide array of classes, including word marks, device marks, packaging, and shape marks. Additionally, the plaintiff owns original artistic packaging constituting copyrightable material under Section 2(c) of the Copyright Act, 1957, and has registered several footwear designs under the Designs Act, 2000. It operates the website www.birkenstock.com and has heavily invested in advertising and brand development.
In March 2025, the plaintiff was informed about the manufacture and sale of counterfeit Birkenstock footwear. The independent global investigations initiated by the plaintiff led to the identification of counterfeiters operating primarily out of rural areas in and around Agra, Uttar Pradesh, with their goods being sold in New Delhi markets such as Ghaffar Market, Karol Bagh, and Tilak Nagar. The investigations revealed that defendants 2 to 4 were engaged in manufacturing, retailing, distributing, and exporting counterfeit BIRKENSTOCK sandals. These operations were confirmed via purchases made by investigators in the presence of a notary public, photographs from the premises, and recovery of products visibly similar to genuine Birkenstock offerings. Defendant 1 was named as “John Doe” given the lack of further identifying details at that stage.
The plaintiff filed the suit accompanied by multiple applications, including exemption from pre-litigation mediation, exemption from advance service to defendants (to preserve evidence), permission to file electronic records, and an interim injunction application. It also sought an order for the appointment of Local Commissioners to execute search-and-seizure operations across several Delhi and Agra locations.
In assessing the interim relief sought, the Court closely examined side-by-side product comparisons between the plaintiff’s genuine footwear and the impugned products sold by the defendants. It observed that the defendants’ goods appeared to be cheap knock-offs with marks and trade dress deceptively similar to the plaintiffs. The Court found the similarities to be prima facie evident, such that they were likely to deceive or confuse consumers into believing that the counterfeit products originated from or were associated with Birkenstock. It was also held that the defendants were not authorized sellers, manufacturers, or distributors of the plaintiff, nor part of its supply chain.
On the strength of documentary evidence, the physical samples produced in Court, and the admitted trademark and design registrations, the Court concluded that the plaintiff had established a strong prima facie case of infringement of trademark, copyright, and design, as well as passing off. The balance of convenience was in favour of the plaintiff, and the Court found that allowing the defendants to continue would lead to irreparable harm and injury to the plaintiff’s goodwill and reputation.
Consequently, the Court passed an ex parte ad interim injunction, restraining the defendants and all associated persons from manufacturing, selling, storing, importing, exporting, or dealing in footwear or related products bearing the plaintiff’s trademarks, including any deceptively similar variants, packaging, shape marks, logos, or artistic work infringing Birkenstock’s intellectual property rights.
Further, the Court appointed ten Local Commissioners, each assigned specific locations in Delhi and Agra, to conduct search and seizure operations. The Commissioners were empowered to seize infringing goods, photograph and record video evidence, examine and copy business records, and break locks if necessary, with the assistance of local police authorities. The sealed infringing goods were to be handed over to the plaintiff on Superdari with an undertaking to produce them before the Court when required. The Commissioners were also permitted to act on future leads and visit additional locations, with a specified fee and expense schedule.
The matter was directed to be listed next before the Joint Registrar on 26-08-2025, and before the Court on 06-10-2025, with directions issued for filing of written statements, replies, and compliance with procedural requirements.
[X v. Y, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 4830, 26-05-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
Mr. Chander M. Lall, Sr. Adv. With Mr. Raghav Malik, Ms. Aastha Kakkar, Mr. Lalit Alley, Mr. Prashant, Ms. Nida Khanam, Ms. Ananya Chug and Ms. Annanya Mohan, Advocates for plaintiff