adidas vs ADIDAS: Delhi HC awards over Rs 14 lakh in damages for trademark infringement
The court of Justice Sanjeev Narula also fined Adidas Rs 14.22 lakh in damages, which includes Rs 3 lakh in nominal damages and Rs 11.22 lakh in costs incurred by Adidas in pursuing the trademark infringement case over the previous 13 years.
ADVERTISEMENT
In a trademark infringement complaint brought by German sports and apparel business Adidas AG, the Delhi High Court on July 19 imposed a permanent injunction against a similarly called company operating in diverse commodities, including textiles, as per reports.
The court of Justice Sanjeev Narula also fined Adidas Rs 14.22 lakh in damages, which includes Rs 3 lakh in nominal damages and Rs 11.22 lakh in costs incurred by Adidas in pursuing the trademark infringement case over the previous 13 years.
The defendants, who sold goods labeled as 'ADIDAS', claimed that their use of the trademark was "bona fide and honest," and that their decision to use a mark identical to that of the plaintiff Adidas was "rooted in personal affection."
The defendants went on to say that they chose the name because "Defendant No. 1 (Keshav Tulsiani, partner/director of Adidas Weaving Mills, Adidas Textile Industries, and Adidas Merchandise Private Limited) held deep admiration for his elder sister, addressed as 'ADI' in the Sindhi community." This admiration was so strong that he was referred to as her devotee ('Das' in Sindhi). As a result, the acronym "ADIDAS" was coined, combining 'ADI' (older sister) and 'DAS' (devotee) to symbolize this familial devoion.
The defendants also argued that the plaint must not be entertained on grounds of territorial jurisdiction as they neither reside nor conduct their business in the jurisdiction of Delhi as well as the delay in filing the suit, as well as on the fact that the defendants have been using the mark in all uppercase while the plaintiff uses the mark in all lowercase, as per reports.
Addressing the question of delay - the defendants claimed they had been using the mark since 1987 - the court ruled that the defendants bear the burden of proof and did not produce any evidence to support their claim.
The court ruled in favor of Adidas AG, finding that the defendants had been using an identical mark, which, when paired with the similarity between the goods—textiles and garments—"creates a real likelihood of confusion." Adding that a word like ‘Adidas’, which has no inherent linguistic meaning and is a coined term which is a unique word, “they are thus deemed to have a high degree of distinctiveness and are given a wide ambit of protection under trademark law.
