Case Overview:
In the case of New Balance Athletics, Inc v. Pulkit Khubchandani, [CS(Comm) 452/2024 & I.A. 30633/2024], the Delhi High Court addressed a trademark infringement dispute. The plaintiff, New Balance Athletics Inc., a renowned global footwear company, alleged that the defendant, Pulkit Khubchandani, trading as Kiran Shoe Company, had been using marks similar to its registered trademarks to market counterfeit products.
The Plaintiff’s Claims:
New Balance asserted that it has been using the trademarks “N” and “550” since 1970 and 1989, respectively, on its footwear. These marks enjoy significant goodwill and reputation in the marketplace.
The defendant was accused of counterfeiting New Balance products by using the infringing marks “N Device,” “K Device,” and “550” on footwear sold nationwide through e-commerce platforms like Amazon, Flipkart, IndiaMart, and JustDial. The plaintiff alleged that this activity had been ongoing since 2015.
Defendant’s Standpoint:
The defendant’s counsel claimed that the company had ceased using the infringing trademarks. However, the plaintiff’s counsel pushed for costs and damages, arguing that the defendant had no valid reason for adopting the plaintiff’s trademarks.
Court’s Findings:
The court observed that:
- The defendant failed to provide any plausible explanation for adopting marks identical to New Balance’s trademarks.
- The use of these marks was clearly intended to mislead consumers and boost sales by capitalizing on New Balance’s reputation.
Key Judgment Excerpt:
“An ordinary consumer, having average intelligence and without minute examination on the background of the defendant, is likely to be confused that the defendant has some association or connection with the plaintiff. Thus, use of the plaintiff’s marks by the defendant gives an unfair advantage to the defendant and is detrimental to the distinctive character or repute of the plaintiff’s registered trademark.”
Court’s Decision:
The Delhi High Court awarded ₹7 lakh in costs and damages to the plaintiff. The court concluded that the defendant’s actions were deliberate and aimed at riding on the plaintiff’s goodwill and reputation.