INTRODUCTION
The Hon’ble Delhi High Court, in a significant ruling, recently handed down a verdict in the case of ‘Adidas v. Keshav H. Tulsiani & Ors,’ decisively favouring the esteemed German sportswear giant, Adidas. The court issued a permanent injunction against the defendant, Keshav H. Tulsiani, and the company bearing a similar name, restraining them from further use of the infringing mark. Additionally, the court imposed a substantial fine of Rs. 14.22 lakh on the defendants for their egregious trademark infringement, thereby upholding Adidas’ exclusive rights and reputation
BACKGROUND
The origin of word ‘ADIDAS’ is different for both the parties. Plaintiff, Adolf Dassler, the founder of ADIDAS, combined the first three alphabet of his name and last three alphabet of last name and to create the brand name. The brand was first commercially used in 1949 for producing and selling sports goods, accessories, and clothing. The company was later restructured and is currently known as Adidas AG. Whereas, the defendant Tulsiani, named his company ‘ADIDAS’ out of admiration for her elder sister where ‘Adi’ means sister and ‘DAS’ meant devotee in Sindhi.
DISPUTE
The Plaintiff discovered that the Defendants were selling products under the name of ‘ADIDAS’ which was similar to their brand name leading to the filing of an infringement suit against them. In their defense, the Defendants contended that their use of the mark was bona fide and honest, claiming that it was inspired by a familial affection rather than an intention to copy. It further argued that the Plaintiff’s delay in filing the suit implied laches, and highlighted the distinctive usage of the mark, noting that they used all uppercase letters whereas the Plaintiff employed all lowercase letters. Additionally, the Defendants raised the issue of lack of territorial jurisdiction, arguing that neither their residence nor business operations were within the Delhi jurisdiction, rendering the suit non-justiciable and seeking dismissal of the Plaintiff’s claim on these grounds.
JUDGEMENT
Ruling in favour of Plaintiff, Adidas AG, the court decreed that the Defendants’ utilization of a similar mark, ‘ADIDAS’, constitutes infringement, as it is identical to the Plaintiff’s distinctive mark and likely to induce confusion amongst the public. The court highlighted that the word ‘ADIDAS’ lacks any linguistic significance, rendering it a unique and coined term. Furthermore, the court addressed the Defendants’ contention regarding delay, observing that although they claimed to have used the mark since 1987, the onus of proof lay with them, and they failed to discharge this burden. Consequently, the court awarded compensation in the amount of ₹14.22 lakh to the Plaintiff and granted a permanent injunction against the Defendants, thereby restraining them from further use of the infringing mark.
SIGNIFICANCE
The case is significant for all the trademark infringement cases. It reaffirms the importance of protecting unique brand names, sets a precedent for scrutinizing claims of bona fide use, and demonstrates the courts’ willingness to protect exclusive rights and reputation of renowned brands, serving as a deterrent to potential infringers.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, the Delhi High Court’s verdict in ‘Adidas v. Keshav H. Tulsiani & Ors’ is a landmark decision that reinforces the importance of trademark protection and brand exclusivity in India. By granting a permanent injunction and substantial compensation to Adidas, the court has sent a strong message against trademark infringement and emphasized the need for businesses to respect and protect intellectual property rights. This decision is a significant win for Adidas and a crucial precedent for future trademark cases in India.
