Delhi High Court Issues Permanent Injunction Against Infringement of Adidas Trademark

Keywords: Delhi High Court, Adidas AG, trademark infringement, permanent injunction, damages, territorial jurisdiction

Case Summary

The Delhi High Court has ruled in favor of the German sports and apparel giant Adidas AG in a trademark infringement lawsuit, issuing a permanent injunction against a company operating under the same name, which deals in various products including textiles.

Key Points:

1. Permanent Injunction and Damages:
   • Justice Sanjeev Narula awarded Rs 14.22 lakh in damages to Adidas AG. This includes Rs 3 lakh in nominal damages and Rs 11.22 lakh to cover legal fees incurred over the past 13 years.
2. Defendants’ Argument:
   • The defendants, represented by Keshav Tulsiani, claimed their use of “ADIDAS” was based on personal affection. Tulsiani, who admires his elder sister ‘Adi,’ combined her name with ‘Das’ (devotee) to form “ADIDAS.”
   • They argued that the adoption of the trademark was “bonafide and honest,” and that there was no intention to infringe on Adidas AG’s brand.
3. Jurisdiction and Delay:
   • The defendants contended that the Delhi High Court lacked territorial jurisdiction as they did not reside or conduct business in Delhi. However, the court determined jurisdiction based on the operations of ADIDAS India Marketing Pvt. Ltd., a subsidiary based in Satbari, New Delhi.
   • The court also addressed the issue of delay, concluding that the defendants failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove the use of the mark since 1987.
4. Court’s Rationale:
   • The court found significant potential for consumer confusion due to the identical use of the “Adidas” mark by the defendants, especially given the similarities in the products (textiles and clothing).
   • It emphasized the distinctiveness of the “Adidas” brand, formed without inherent linguistic meaning, granting it a broad scope of protection under trademark law.

Legal Implications

The ruling reinforces the importance of protecting distinct and well-known trademarks from unauthorized use, even if the alleged infringer claims a personal and non-commercial origin for their use of the mark. The decision also highlights the court’s willingness to exercise territorial jurisdiction based on the presence and activities of subsidiaries.

For more information and updates on this case and other legal developments, visit Kanishk Social Media.