Delhi High Court Grants 7 Lakhs in Costs and Damages to ‘New Balance’ in Trademark Infringement Case, Ordinary Consumers May Be Confused.
The Delhi High Court has provided support to the global sports brand ‘New Balance’ in a trademark infringement case. The court ordered a local shoe company to pay Rs 7 lakh in costs and damages. The case involved a request for a permanent injunction against trademark infringement, passing off, and unfair competition due to the defendant’s production and sale of footwear with the marks N Device, K Device, and 550. New Balance argued that these marks were very similar to their own N Device and 550 marks. Justice Mini Pushkarna stated that the defendant cannot use the marks ‘N’ or ‘550’ or any similar marks that could confuse consumers.
New Balance Athletics Inc. asserted that its trademarks have built significant goodwill and reputation in the market due to long-term use and are exclusively linked to their products. In India, New Balance holds valid registrations for its N marks. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant’s marks closely resemble theirs. The court was informed that the defendant operates a website, www.knoos.in, and sells through e-commerce platforms. After discovering the infringement, New Balance hired an investigation firm, which confirmed that the defendant was actively manufacturing and selling footwear with their marks across the country.
The Court previously issued a temporary injunction preventing the defendant from selling footwear that features the marks ‘N’, ‘550’, or any similar marks that could confuse consumers with the plaintiff’s trademarks. A Local Commissioner also confiscated a significant number of counterfeit items, including around one hundred pairs of fake shoes. After reviewing the evidence and arguments, the Bench observed that the defendant failed to provide a valid reason for using the trademarks ‘N’ or ‘550’. The defendant’s statement to the plaintiff’s investigator indicated that he chose these marks to increase sales, which shows bad faith and dishonesty in using the plaintiff’s trademarks.
The Bench concluded that the defendant had indeed violated the plaintiff’s registered trademark. They noted that an average consumer, without closely examining the defendant’s background, might mistakenly believe there is a connection between the defendant and the plaintiff. This misuse of the plaintiff’s trademarks gives the defendant an unfair edge and harms the reputation of the plaintiff’s registered trademark. Given this analysis and the defendant’s willingness to accept the injunction, the Bench granted the plaintiff a permanent injunction against the defendant.
The court noted that the defendant’s use of the infringing mark was not genuine or honest. They stated, “The defendant intentionally violated the plaintiff’s trademarks and cannot claim ignorance of their prior existence or the reputation of the plaintiff’s registered trademark. The defendant has no valid reason for using the plaintiff’s trademark, except to benefit from the plaintiff’s strong reputation and goodwill. The plaintiff has submitted a cost affidavit and shown their right to damages.” The court also ordered the defendant to destroy the confiscated infringing products and ruled, “The plaintiff is entitled to Costs of ₹ 5,00,000 and Damages of ₹2,00,000.”
Cause Title: New Balance Athletics Inc. vs. Pulkit Khubchandani [2024: DHC: 8345]
Appearance:
Plaintiff: Advocates Urfee Roomi, Janaki Arun, Ayush Dixit, Jaskaran Singh and Chahat Bhatia
Defendant: Advocates Sanjeev Singh and Sanchit Bhushan with defendant in person
