You are on page 1of 8

IN THE COURT OF ANIL ANTIL, ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE­05,

 SOUTH EAST DISTRICT,  SAKET COURTS,  ND.

TM No. 62/17
Adidas A.G. Vs. Prashant Goswami

Adidas A.G
Adi­Dassler­Strasse 1­2, 91074, Herzogenaurach
Germany

Through 
Gurjeet Sigh
Costituted Attorney
96, Sukhdev Vihar, Mathura Road, 
New Delhi­110028 ….......Plaintiff

Versus

Prashant Goswami 
S/o Sh. Harish Goswami
17/66, Than Singh Nagar,
New Rohtak Road, 
Anand Parbat
New Delhi­10005
                  ….......Defendant

Date of institution of the suit  : 05.07.2017
Date reserved for judgment : 30.10.2018
Date of pronouncement of judgment : 30.10.2018

Decision­ Suit Decreed

TM No.62/17   Adidas A.G. Vs. Prashant Goswami Page no. 1 of 8


JUDGMENT
 1    The   present   suit   was   filed   by   the   plaintiff   for   permanent   injunction
restraining infringement of trade marks, copyright, passing off, restrain of
use   of   domain   name   damages,   unfair   competition   rendition   of   account,
delivery UP, ETC. 
 2   Plaintiff's version as per averments in the plaint :­
2.1 Succinctly,   the   plaintiff   company  is   engaged  in  manufacturing,
sale   and   distribution   of   large   variety   of   goods   including   footwear,
athletic shoes, boots, clothing, bags of all kinds, sporting goods, watches
and other timing devices, eye­were, including sunglasses and protective
eye­wear for the practice of sports, consumers electronic products, spots
balls,   sports   equipment   and   other   allied/related   products   across   the
world. 
2.2 That   the   plaintiff   company   is   the   owner   of   trademarks
"ADIDAS" and logos "3­Stripes", " Trefoil"(hereinafter referred as
plaintiff's trademark/logo) and many other words mark/ label/device and
the   said   marks   and   logos   are   registered   under   the   provisions   of   the
Trademarks Act, in India. The word mark “adidas” and its logo are an
artistic work under definition of Copyright Act owing to their unique
design effect and style, the plaintiff company have the copyright over the
logos   of   “adidas”,   since   it's   the   original   and   pristine   creation   of   the
plaintiff. Thus, plaintiff is entitled to all relief pertaining to infringement
of copyright in logo of “adidas”, under the Copyright Act,  1957. 
2.3 That   the   plaintiff's   trademark/logo   are   registered   under   various

TM No.62/17   Adidas A.G. Vs. Prashant Goswami Page no. 2 of 8


classes   of   Trademarks   Rules   in   India.   Plaintiff   company   has   thus
exclusive   right   to   use   said   trademark   and   logos   with   respect   to   its
products   and   no   one   is   entitled   to   use   the   said   trademarks/   label/
device/logo  or   any   mark   deceptively   and   confusingly   similar   to
"Adidas"   and   logos   "3­Stripes",   "   Trefoil"  without   a   licence   or
assignment by the plaintiff company. 
2.4 That the plaintiff owns, uses and is the registered proprietor of its
said  ADIDAS  Trade Mark/ Label/ device in numerous jurisdictions of
the world including in India. 
2.5 That   the   defendant   engaged   in   the   business   of   stocking,
distribution and selling spurious goods from its shop/ godown/premises.
On 04.06.2017 as commission was executed in suit bearing TM 45/2017
titled   as   Nike   Innovate   C.   Vs.   Vs.   Ashok   Kumar   vide   order   dated
02.06.2017   before   this   court.   While   executing   the   commission   and
searching and seizing there impugned goods of mark/ label “NIKE”, the
impugned   goods   under   the  trademark/label/device   “ADIDAS”  were
also   found   at   defendant's   premises.   The   Local   Commissioner   had
submitted its report in the said regard. 
2.6 That   the   marks   used   by   the   defendant   are   identical   and/or
confusingly or deceptively  similar to the  registered  trademarks  of  the
plaintiff   company.   The   use   of   marks   which   are   confusingly   or
deceptively similar to the registered trademarks of plaintiff in relation to
similar goods with respect to which the marks are registered are likely to
cause confusion in the mind of general public. 

TM No.62/17   Adidas A.G. Vs. Prashant Goswami Page no. 3 of 8


2.7 That   the   defendant   is   also   engaged   in   the   manufacturing,
marketing, soliciting and trade of lowers, readymade garments and / or
apparels,   sportswear,   sports­related   goods,   footwear,   shoes   and   other
allied/  related/ cognate  products   and  the  apparels  are  deceptively and
confusingly similar to plaintiff's trademark/label/device. 
3   That on 06.07.2017 ad­interim injunction was granted in favour of
the   plaintiff   and   against   the   defendant   restraining   him   from   using   the
impugned trademark/label/device.
4 Process   issued   to   the   defendants.   Defendant   has   entered   his
appearance   on   31.07.2017;   matter   was   referred   to   Mediation   Center   for
settlement   which   remained   non­starter.   No   WS   was   thereafter   filed   on
behalf of defendant despite being given number of opportunities. Vide order
dated 23.11.2017 right of the defendant to file WS was stands closed. Issues
were   framed   vide   order   dated   12.01.2018   and   matter   listed   for   plaintiff
evidence.
5   In the meantime, Ld. Counsel for plaintiff filed an application under
O VII R 10 CPC stating that defendant was duly served, no WS has been
filed, therefor plaintiff is entitled to a decree in terms of O VIII R 10 CPC
against   defendant.   No   reply   to   the   said   application   was   filed   by   the
defendant.
5.1 Ld.   Counsel   for   plaintiff   relied   upon   the   judgment   passed   by
Hon'ble High Court of Delhi titled as Cisco Technology, INC. Vs.
Yameen & Another 2010(45) PTC 269 (Del)' and another judgment
titled as Burger Kind Corporation Vs. Burger Place 2015(64) PTC

TM No.62/17   Adidas A.G. Vs. Prashant Goswami Page no. 4 of 8


308(Del.) to claim his relief in terms of O VIII R 10 CPC. 
6 Heard.   Perused   the   records   meticulously.   I   am   of   the   considered
view, plaintiff is entitled to a decree in his favour and against the defendant
for the reasons stated as under. 
7 Perusal   of   the   documents   and   Pleadings   filed   by   the   plaintiff
transpires that plaintiff's trademark are all registered and valid as on the date
of filing of the suit. The  registration gives exclusive rights to the plaintiff to
protect their rights in said marks and take infringements actions against any
party in violation thereof. By virtue of long, extensive and continuous use of
trademark, plaintiff's marks have become inseparable and synonymous with
the goods of the plaintiff.
8 As held by the Hon'ble High court of Delhi in “The Royal Bank of
Scotland   Group   PLC   Vs.   Sharekhan   Limited,   216(2015)   DLT   197”,
quoted with approval in the case relied upon by the plaintiff:
'In order to establish infringement, the main ingredients of Section
29 of the Act are that the plaintiff's mark must be registered under the
Act; the defendant's mark is identical with or deceptively similar to the
registered   trade   mark;   and   the   defendant's   use   of   the   mark   is   in   the
course of trade in respect of the goods covered by the registered trade
mark. The rival marks are to be compared as a whole. Where two rival
marks are identical, it is not necessary for the plaintiff to prove further
that   the   use   of   defendant's   trade   mark   is   likely   to   deceive   and   cause
confusion as the registration show the title of the registered proprietor and

TM No.62/17   Adidas A.G. Vs. Prashant Goswami Page no. 5 of 8


the things speak for themselves. In an infringement action, once a mark is
used   as   indicating   commercial   origin   by   the   defendant,   no   amount   of
added matter intended to show the true origin of the goods can effect the
question.   If   court   find   that   the   defendant's   mark   is   closely,   visually
phonetically similar, even then no further proof is necessary.'
9 In the present case, comparison of the marks as detailed in para 35 of
the plaint reflects the similarity between the impugned marks of defendants
and   the   marks   of   the   plaintiff;   defendant's   marks   are   identical   to   the
plaintiff's marks. It is the case of counterfeit goods.
10 Customers   base   of   the   products   of   both   the   parties   may   not   be
necessarily same. But plaintiff is entitled to protect its proprietary rights in
the   impugned   trademarks   under   Section   29   (1)   &   (2)   as   well   under   the
doctrine   of   dilution  statutorily   incorporated  in  clause   4  of  Section  29  of
Trademarks Act. The representation of the marks by the defendant tends to
cause   confusion   in   the   minds   of   the   general   public   as   well   as   to   the
customers as to identity of the source of the impugned products.
11 If the defendant is permitted to use the impugned mark which are
deceptively similar and confusingly to that of the plaintiff's company, it will
not only cause wrongful loss to the plaintiff company, but it will also cause
grave   prejudice   and   harm   to   public.   Not   to   mention   about   loss   to   the
goodwill of the plaintiff. 
12 Besides as stated above no WS has been filed by the defendant to
deny and controvert the allegations of the plaintiff. The defendant did not
come   forward   to   disprove   the   case   of   plaintiff   his   stand.     Consequently

TM No.62/17   Adidas A.G. Vs. Prashant Goswami Page no. 6 of 8


plaintiff is entitled to a decree for injunction in his favour and against the
defendant. 
13 Damages
13.1 In the present suit plaintiff is also claiming rendition of account
by the defendant and damages in terms of prayer clause 'd' of the plaint. 
13.2 A   reference   to   the   decision   of  Hon'ble   High   Court   of   Delhi
titled as “ The Heels V. Mr. V. K. Abrol and Anr. , CS (OS) No. 1385
of   2005   decided   on   29.03.2006”  would   be   profitable,   wherein   the
Hon'ble court has held:
“This   court     has   taken   a   view   that   where   a   defendant
deliberately stays away from the proceedings with the result that on
enquiry   into   the   accounts   of   the   defendant   for   determination   of
damages   cannot   take   place,   the   plaintiff   cannot   be   deprived   of   the
claim for damages as that would amount to a premium on the conduct
of such defendant. The result would be that parties who appear before
the court and contest the matter would be liable to damages while the
parties who choose to stay away from the court after having infringed
the right of the plaintiff, would go scotfree. This position cannot be
acceptable.
No doubt it not possible to give an exact figure of damages on
the basis of actual loss, but certain token amounts on the basis of the
sales   of   the   plaintiff   can   certainly   be   made.   The   plaintiff   is
unnecessarily   dragged   into   litigation   and   the   defendants   must   bear

TM No.62/17   Adidas A.G. Vs. Prashant Goswami Page no. 7 of 8


consequences thereof. In fact in such a case both compensatory and
punitive damages ought to be granted apart from the costs incurred by
the plaintiff on such litigation. In view of the given sales figure of the
plaintiff. I consider it appropriates to grant a decree of damages in
favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants for a sum of Rs. 3
lakh apart from costs of the suit. '
14 In view of my finding that the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of
permanent injunction, also taking in to consideration the proposition of law
stated above I am of the view plaintiff is entitled to punitive damages to the
tune of Rs.1 lakhs rupees in its favour and against the defendant.
 15  Relief. 
In   view   of   my   above   discussion   the   application   is   allowed   and
disposed of accordingly. The suit is decreed in favour of the plaintiff and
against the defendant in terms of the para 30 prayer clauses (a) to (b) of the
plaint with punitive /compensatory damages to the tune of Rs. 1 lakhs. 
  The suit stands disposed off as decreed. 
Cost   of   the   suit   is   awarded   in   favour   of   the   plaintiff   and   against
defendant.
Decree sheet be drawn accordingly. 
File be consigned to record room. 

Announced in the open Court            (Anil Antil)


Today on 30.10.2018 ADJ­05, South East, District(SE)
     Saket Court, New Delhi 

TM No.62/17   Adidas A.G. Vs. Prashant Goswami Page no. 8 of 8

You might also like