Back
2023 Supreme(Del) 4532
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
C. Hari Shankar, J.
Puma Se – Appellant
Versus
Alika Healthcare Pvt. Ltd – Respondent
CS(COMM) 61 of 2021
Decided On : 08-05-2023
Mr. Ranjan Narula and Mr. Shashi P. Ojha, Advocates, for the Plaintiff.
None, for the Respondent.
The recognition of a mark as a well-known mark under the Trademarks Act, 1999, entitles it to protection across classes, and unrebutted assertions in a plaint can establish a clear case of infringement.
Headnote:
PUMA - Trademark Infringement - Trademarks Act, 1999, Section 29, Section 134 - The court found that the defendant's use of the mark PUMA-40 and PUMA-DSR for pharmaceutical products infringed on the plaintiff's registered marks PUMA. The plaintiff's registrations of the word and device marks PUMA in various classes, as well as the recognition of PUMA as a well-known mark, entitled it to protection across classes. The court decreed a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from using the mark PUMA or any similar mark in respect of pharmaceutical products or any other product.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff alleged infringement by the defendant for using the mark PUMA for pharmaceutical products. The defendant manufactured and sold pantoprazole tablets under the marks PUMA-DSR and PUMA-40. Despite summons, the defendant did not file a written statement or appear in the proceedings, and was proceeded ex parte.
Finding of the Court:
The court found a clear case of infringement of the plaintiff's registered mark PUMA, as it was registered as a word mark and a device mark, and recognized as a well-known mark. As the defendant did not contest the assertions in the plaint, the court decreed the suit and granted a permanent injunction against the defendant.
Issues: Trademark infringement, absence of defendant's response, recognition of PUMA as a well-known mark, entitlement to protection across classes.
Ratio Decidendi: The plaintiff's unrebutted assertions in the plaint established a clear case of infringement, and the recognition of PUMA as a well-known mark entitled it to protection across classes, leading to the court's decision to decree the suit and grant a permanent injunction.
Final Decision: The suit was decreed, and a permanent injunction was issued restraining the defendant from using the mark PUMA or any similar mark in respect of pharmaceutical products or any other product. The defendant was also directed to pay costs of Rs. 5 lakhs to the plaintiff.
JUDGMENT (Oral)
C. Hari Shankar, J.
1. The plaintiff alleges infringement, by the defendant, by use of the mark PUMA for pharmaceutical products for pantoprazole tablets. The defendant is manufacturing and selling its pantoprazole tablets under the marks PUMA-DSR and PUMA-40.
2. PUMA, both as a word mark as well as a device mark, stand registered in favour of the plaintiff in various classes. The plaintiff holds registrations of:
(i) the word mark PUMA in Classes 18 and 25 w.e.f. 15th February 1977 and w.e.f. 4th November 2015 in Class 35,
(ii) the device mark [IMG]
(a) w.e.f. 25th February 1986 in Class 18,
(b) w.e.f. 3rd October 1991 in Class 24,
(c) w.e.f. 22nd February 1996 in Classes 3 and 9,
(d) w.e.f. 4th March 1996 in Class 16,
(e) w.e.f. 3rd February 2004 in Class 41,
(f) w.e.f. 8th November 1983 in Class 28,
(g) w.e.f. 27th July 1984 in Class 14,
(h) w.e..f 25th February 1986 in Class 25 and
(i) w.e.f. 12th November 2015 in Class 35.
(iii) the device mark [IMG]
(a) w.e.f. 3rd July 1990 in Class 28 and
(b) w.e.f. 5th February 1986 in Class 24, and
(iv) the device mark [IMG]
(a) w.e.f. 15th February 1977 in Classes 18 and 25
3. The word and device marks PUMA are, therefore, registered in favour of the plaintiff in various classes in respect of various categories of goods.
4. The mark PUMA is also included in the list of well-known trade marks by way of a Circular under Rule 124(4) of the Trademarks Rules 2017, which has been placed on record at page 8 of the list of documents filed with the plaint.
5. To vouchsafe the reputation and goodwill of the plaintiff in the market, the plaint has also provided the returns earned by the plaintiff from the sales of products bearing the asserted PUMA mark which, during the year 2019, is in the region of Rs. 1,400 crores. Para 16 of the plaint also asserts that the plaintiff has spent huge amounts on advertisement and promotion of the PUMA mark which, during the year 2019, is in the region of Rs. 64.2 crores.
6. The plaint asserts that, owing to the goodwill earned by a dint of continuous use over a period of time, the mark PUMA has become indelibly associated, in the public psyche, with the plaint, and has become a source identifier.
7. The plaintiff is aggrieved by the use, by the defendant, of the marks PUMA-40 and PUMA-DSR for its pantoprazole tablets.
8. Despite summons, no written statement in response to the suit has been filed till date. The defendant has also been absenting from the proceedings. On 3rd December 2021, the defendant was proceeded ex parte. No application for setting aside the said order has been filed and the defendant has remained absent from the present proceedings even thereafter.
9. Ms. Sonu Kapoor, the constituted Attorney of the plaintiff, has tendered evidence as PW-1. She has filed her affidavit in evidence and was also examined in chief, wherein she reiterated the contents of the affidavit. The affidavit vouchsafes the contents of the plaint. As the defendant has remained absent, she was discharged without cross- examination.
10. The contents of the plaint, thereby, stand unrebutted and also stand proved by way of the affidavit of Ms. Sonu Kapoor as PW-1.
11. The recital in the plaint makes out a clear case of infringement, by the defendant, of the mark PUMA of the plaintiff, as the said mark has been registered in favour of the plaintiff not only as a device mark but also as a word mark simplicitor. Inasmuch as the mark also stands recognized by the Registry of Trade Marks as a well-known mark, it would be entitled to protection across classes.
12. As there is no traversal to the assertions in the plaint, I am of the opinion that in exercise of the power vested in this Court by Order VIII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), the suit may be decreed at this stage itself.
13. Accordingly, in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, as a clear prima facie case of infringement of the plaintiff's registered mark is made out, the suit i
