Delhi High Court Puma Se vs Indiamart Intermesh Ltd on 3 January, 2024 $~ * Reserved on: 13 March 2023 Pronounced on: 3 January 2024 + CS(COMM) 607/2021 PUMA SE ..... Plaintiff Through: Mr. Ranjan Narula and Ms. Shivangi Kohli, Advs. versus INDIAMART INTERMESH LTD ..... Defendant Through: Mr. Rajshekhar Rao, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Pulkit Gupta and Ms. Rhea Dube, Ms. Zeya Junaid, Advs. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.HARI SHANKAR JUDGMENT % 03.01.2024 I.A. 15564/2021(under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC) The Dispute The plaintiff's grievance 1. Puma SE, the plaintiff, is one of the world's leading manufacturers of sportswear and accessories. It uses the distinctive and logos, which are its source identifiers. "PUMA" as a word mark is registered in the name of the plaintiff in Classes 18 and Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR CS(COMM) 607/2021 Page 1 of 85 Signing Date:04.01.2024 18:32:45 25 with effect from 15 February 1977; the device mark is registered in Classes 3, 9, 14, 16, 18, 24, 25, 28 and 41, the earliest registration being of 8 November 1983 in Class 28, and the device mark is registered in the name of the plaintiff in Class 25 with effect from 11 July 1983. All registrations are valid and subsisting. The sales figures, from sales of goods bearing the and marks are testimony to their enduring goodwill and reputation, with sales during the year 2019 alone having fetched over ₹ 1400 crores. The plaintiff has spent, in the said year alone, over ₹ 64 crores towards advertisement and promotion of its brands. The plaintiff's trademark PUMA has been declared as a wellknown trademark by the Trade Marks Registry on 24 February 2020. 2. The defendant IndiaMART IndiaMESH Ltd ("IIL" hereinafter) operates the website www.indiamart.com. Merchandise of various manufacturers are purchasable from the said website. The website allows a consumer to enter a search option in the space provided for the purpose. 3. The plaintiff's grievance, as articulated by Mr. Ranjan Narula, learned Counsel, is that, if one enters, in the said space, the search word "PUMA", various counterfeit goods, bearing fake "Puma" marks, put up by thirdparty sellers, are displayed for purchase. These goods also bear the plaintiff's registered trademarks and . The following screenshots, bearing this out, have been provided in the plaint: Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR CS(COMM) 607/2021 Page 2 of 85 Signing Date:04.01.2024 18:32:45 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR CS(COMM) 607/2021 Page 3 of 85 Signing Date:04.01.2024 18:32:45 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR CS(COMM) 607/2021 Page 4 of 85 Signing Date:04.01.2024 18:32:45 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR CS(COMM) 607/2021 Page 5 of 85 Signing Date:04.01.2024 18:32:45 4. The dispute is in a narrow compass. Mr. Narula submits that most of the goods which are put up by various sellers as genuine PUMA sportswear or allied products are in fact counterfeits. IIL's Indiamart ecommerce website is, therefore, being used to peddle counterfeit goods of the plaintiff. The use of the plaintiff's registered trademarks on such counterfeit goods, he submits, am