Neutral Citation Number : 2023:DHC:3289

CS(COMM) 61/2021

Page 1 of 6

$~5

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+

CS(COMM) 61/2021

PUMA SE

..... Plaintiff

Through:

Mr. Ranjan Narula and Mr.

Shashi P. Ojha, Advs.

Versus

ALIKA HEALTHCARE PVT. LTD

..... Defendant

Through:

None

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.HARI SHANKAR

JUDGMENT (ORAL)

%

08.05.2023

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. 15^th

February 1977 and w.e.f. 4^th November 2015 in Class 35,

(ii)

the device mark

(a)

w.e.f. 25^th February 1986 in Class 18,

(b)

w.e.f. 3^rd October 1991 in Class 24,

(c)

w.e.f. 22^nd February 1996 in Classes 3 and 9,

Digitally Signed

By:KAMLA RAWAT

Signing Date:12.05.2023

16:19:45

Signature Not Verified

Neutral Citation Number : 2023:DHC:3289

CS(COMM) 61/2021

Page 2 of 6

(d)

w.e.f. 4^th March 1996 in Class 16,

(e)

w.e.f. 3^rd February 2004 in Class 41,

(f)

w.e.f. 8^th November 1983 in Class 28,

(g)

w.e.f. 27^th July 1984 in Class 14,

(h)

w.e..f 25^th February 1986 in Class 25 and

(i)

w.e.f. 12^th November 2015 in Class 35.

(iii)

the device mark

(a)

w.e.f. 3^rd July 1990 in Class 28 and

(b)

w.e.f. 5^th February 1986 in Class 24, and

(iv)

the device mark

(a)

w.e.f. 15^th 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 ₹ 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 ₹ 64.2 crores.

Digitally Signed

By:KAMLA RAWAT

Signing Date:12.05.2023

16:19:45

Signature Not Verified

Neutral Citation Number : 2023:DHC:3289

CS(COMM) 61/2021

Page 3 of 6

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 3^rd 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