The Delhi High Court has restrained three local firms – Adidas Weaving Mills, Adidas Textile Industries, and Adidas Merchandise – and their directors from manufacturing, trading, selling or dealing in textile goods under the ‘ADIDAS’ mark or any other marks deceptively similar to the Adidas AG’s trademark.
While Adidas AG had sought damages suffered from infringing use by the three firms to the tune of Rs 20 lakh, Justice Sanjeev Narula rejected the former’s claim, saying it was entitled to nominal damages of Rs 3 lakh as it “has not led any evidence to demonstrate the actual damages suffered by them resulting from the defendants’ infringing use.”
Apart from the testimony of one witness, which merely stated that Adidas AG was entitled to exemplary costs and damages, no concrete evidence has been produced to prove damages or exemplary costs, the judge said. Furthermore, the order stated that there had been no recovery of infringing goods, therefore, the German sportswear company was entitled to nominal damages of Rs 3 lakh as the defendants had abstained from participating in the court proceeding from the stage of leading their evidence.
It also awarded Adidas AG Rs 11.22 lakh towards other costs, including litigation costs.
The high court order came on a trademark infringement petition by Adidas, manufacturer and distributor of sports accessories and apparel under the trademark “ADIDAS”. It had alleged that the three domestic firms in “bad faith, with dishonest intent had commenced using an identical term “ADIDAS” for their textiles business.” The name “ADIDAS” was formed by the founder of its company Adolf Dassler by combining his name “Ad” with the first three letters of his surname “Das,” the German company said, adding that the sales figures of its products in India amounted to Rs 335.81 crore in 2009.
On the other hand, the directors of Adidas Weaving Mills and other firms led one partner Keshav H. Tulsiani argued that the rationale for choosing a name identical to that of the German company was rooted in personal affection. From childhood, one of the directors, Keshav held deep admiration for his elder sister, addressed as “ADI” in the Sindhi community. This admiration was so profound that he was commonly described as her devotee “Das” in Sindhi. Consequently, the term “ADIDAS”, which meant devotee of elder sister, was conceived, combining “ADI” and “DAS”, to reflect this familial devotion, the domestic firms submitted.They also argued that the sportwear giant acknowledged awareness of their use of the trademark since 1987 as no suit for infringement was initiated until 2011. This prolonged period of inaction, spanning over two decades, implies a tacit consent to the Defendants’ use of the mark, Keshav said.
“Given this context, initiating a suit after such a significant delay not only undermines the urgency normally associated with trademark infringement claims but also signals an abandonment of any objections to the defendants’ use. Consequently, the Plaintiff’s claim is barred by principles of delay, estoppel, acquiescence, and waiver, each underscoring the unreasonable delay and its prejudicial impact on the defendants,” the firms argued.
