Delhi High Court Grants Ex-Parte Injunction and Appoints Commissioners Against Birkenstock Counterfeiters - 2026-05-22

Stepping Down on Counterfeits: Delhi High Court Intervenes to Protect Birkenstock

In a decisive move to uphold intellectual property integrity, the High Court of Delhi has issued an ex-parte ad-interim injunction against various unauthorized entities involved in the production and sale of counterfeit Birkenstock footwear. The court’s order, delivered by Justice Saurabh Banerjee, aims to dismantle an expansive counterfeit network stretching from manufacturing units in Agra to premium retail outlets in Delhi’s major markets.

The Anatomy of the Dispute

The plaintiff, Birkenstock IP GmbH , a German entity, and its Indian subsidiary, brought the suit alleging that several manufacturers and retailers were engaged in the large-scale creation and distribution of sandals that deceptively replicate the iconic Birkenstock design, trademark, and trade dress.

Global investigations prompted by the plaintiff identified that “knock-off” products were being mass-produced in rural Agra and subsequently funneled into markets such as Ghaffar Market, Karol Bagh, and Tilak Nagar. The defendants, including identified retail points and anonymous "John Doe" entities, were allegedly operating entirely outside the plaintiff’s authorized supply chain, utilizing the patented brand identity to ride on decades of established goodwill.

Arguments for Protection

Counsel for the plaintiff emphasized that the defendants were not merely selling similar footwear but were intentionally marketing products that were indistinguishable to the average consumer. By leveraging the plaintiff's established website metrics, design registrations, and substantial advertising investment, the defendants posed a direct risk of consumer confusion and irreparable reputational damage.

The court, after reviewing representative products provided during the hearing, found that the defendants' goods were fundamentally "cheap knock-offs." The court determined that the products, trademarks, and associated trade dress utilized by the defendants were not only deceptively similar but also targeted the exact same class of purchasers using the same trade channels, leading to a high probability of confusion.

The Court’s Comprehensive Strategy

Recognizing the sophisticated nature of the infringement, Justice Banerjee invoked the court's authority to appoint 10 Local Commissioners. These officers are tasked with conducting search and seizure operations at various premises across Agra and Delhi to secure evidence, seal counterfeit goods, and document financial records before they can be destroyed or hidden.

The court also granted the plaintiff an exemption from pre-litigation mediation, citing the urgency of the matter and aligning with the Supreme Court ’s precedent in Yamini Manohar v. T.K.D. Krithi (2024). Additionally, in a measure to maintain the integrity of the investigation, the court ordered that the names of the plaintiff and the defendants be masked on the court record until such time as the commissioners submit their field reports.

Key Observations

The High Court’s ruling underscored the gravity of the infringement:

• "The products of the defendants seem like a cheap knock off of the plaintiff’s products. Furthermore, there is hardly any difference inter-se the products of defendants from that of the plaintiff."
• "There is all likelihood of the public getting deceived and confused into thinking that the products of the defendant nos. 2 to 4 are in some way associated/ connected with... the house of the plaintiff."
• "The balance of convenience and probabilities tilt in favour of the plaintiff for grant of an ex parte ad interim injunction."
• "The defendant nos. 2 to 4 have deliberately and with mala fides chosen to do so."

Implications and Future Direction

This case marks a significant checkpoint for global luxury brands operating in India. By facilitating an aggressive, multi-locational seizure of counterfeit inventory, the Delhi High Court has signaled a zero-tolerance approach toward large-scale trademark and design piracy. With the matter listed for further hearing in October 2025, the upcoming Local Commissioner reports are expected to shed further light on the scale of the infringing enterprise and may set the stage for a permanent injunction and substantial damages against the identified network.