PUMA SE vs MAHESH KUMAR

Judgment text excerpt

$~25 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS(COMM) 725/2022, I.A. 17018/2022, I.A. 17019/2022 & I.A. 48178/2024 PUMA SE .....Plaintiff Through: Mr. Ranjan Narula, Mr. Shakti Priyan Nair and Mr. Parth Bajaj, Advocates versus MAHESH KUMAR .....Defendant Through: None. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MINI PUSHKARNA ORDER % 12.02.2025 MINI PUSHKARNA, J (ORAL) IA/48178/2024 (Application on behalf of the plaintiff under Order XIII- A read with Order VIII Rule 10 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”) 1. The present application is filed on behalf of the plaintiff under Order XIIIA, read with Order VIII Rule 10, and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”). 2. Present suit has been filed by the plaintiff seeking permanent injunction inter alia, restraining infringement of their trademarks, „PUMA‟, logo and Form strip logo by the defendant and for Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AMAN UNIYAL CS(COMM) 725/2022 Page 1 of 16 Signing Date:09.03.2025 20:03:23 unfair trade competition, rendition of accounts, damages, delivery up, etc. 3. The plaintiff seeks a summary judgement against the defendant, on the ground that the defendant has no prospect of the defending the claims of the plaintiff. 4. The case, as canvassed by the plaintiff, is as follows: 4.1 The plaintiff company is one of the world‟s largest sports brands engaged in designing, developing and marketing footwear, apparel and accessories under their coined marks PUMA and logo since the year 1948. 4.2 The plaintiff‟s well-known trademark, „PUMA‟ is registered in several countries all around the world, including, India. Further, the earliest registration of the plaintiff‟s mark, „PUMA‟ dates back to the year 1948, and the earliest registrations for the plaintiff‟s marks „PUMA‟