NEW DELHI: The Delhi high court granted a permanent injunction against a company with a similar name to Adidas AG, a German sports and apparel company, in a trademark infringement complaint, operating in various industries, including textiles last week on Friday.
Justice Sanjeev Narula’s court on July 19, ordered “ADIDAS” to pay damages amounting to Rs 14.22 lakh.This sum comprises Rs 3 lakh in nominal damages and Rs 11.22 lakh to cover the expenses incurred by the company during the 13-year pursuit of the trademark infringement case.
According to the defendants, the name “ADIDAS” was selected 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.”
The defendants accused of selling products bearing the label “ADIDAS”, said that their usage of the trademark was “bona fide and honest,” and that their choice to employ a mark identical to that of the plaintiff, Adidas “is rooted in personal affection,” rather than any intention to infringe upon.
The defendants claimed that Keshav Tulsiani’s reverence for his sister was so profound that he was known as her devotee, or (‘Das’ in Sindhi).
Consequently, the defendants stated that the term “ADIDAS” was derived by combining ‘ADI’ (older sister) and ‘DAS’ (devotee) to represent this strong familial bond and devotion. The defendants also argued that the plaint should be dismissed due to lack of territorial jurisdiction, as they neither reside nor conduct business in Delhi.
The defendants also pointed out the delay in filing the suit and the difference in the use of the mark, with the defendants using all uppercase letters and the plaintiff using all lowercase, according to reports.
The court addressed the question of delay, noting that the defendants claimed to have been using the mark since 1987. However, the court determined that the burden of proof lies with the defendants, and they failed to provide any evidence to support their claim.
In its ruling, the court sided with Adidas AG, concluding that the defendants had been using a mark that was identical adding that the similarity between the defendants’ mark and the goods they offered, which included textiles and garments, “creates a real likelihood of confusion.”
The court recognised that the word ‘Adidas’ is a coined term, lacking any inherent linguistic meaning, and is therefore considered a unique word, as a result “they are thus deemed to have a high degree of distinctiveness and are given a wide ambit of protection under trademark law”.
Justice Sanjeev Narula’s court on July 19, ordered “ADIDAS” to pay damages amounting to Rs 14.22 lakh.This sum comprises Rs 3 lakh in nominal damages and Rs 11.22 lakh to cover the expenses incurred by the company during the 13-year pursuit of the trademark infringement case.
According to the defendants, the name “ADIDAS” was selected 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.”
The defendants accused of selling products bearing the label “ADIDAS”, said that their usage of the trademark was “bona fide and honest,” and that their choice to employ a mark identical to that of the plaintiff, Adidas “is rooted in personal affection,” rather than any intention to infringe upon.
The defendants claimed that Keshav Tulsiani’s reverence for his sister was so profound that he was known as her devotee, or (‘Das’ in Sindhi).
Consequently, the defendants stated that the term “ADIDAS” was derived by combining ‘ADI’ (older sister) and ‘DAS’ (devotee) to represent this strong familial bond and devotion. The defendants also argued that the plaint should be dismissed due to lack of territorial jurisdiction, as they neither reside nor conduct business in Delhi.
The defendants also pointed out the delay in filing the suit and the difference in the use of the mark, with the defendants using all uppercase letters and the plaintiff using all lowercase, according to reports.
The court addressed the question of delay, noting that the defendants claimed to have been using the mark since 1987. However, the court determined that the burden of proof lies with the defendants, and they failed to provide any evidence to support their claim.
In its ruling, the court sided with Adidas AG, concluding that the defendants had been using a mark that was identical adding that the similarity between the defendants’ mark and the goods they offered, which included textiles and garments, “creates a real likelihood of confusion.”
The court recognised that the word ‘Adidas’ is a coined term, lacking any inherent linguistic meaning, and is therefore considered a unique word, as a result “they are thus deemed to have a high degree of distinctiveness and are given a wide ambit of protection under trademark law”.
