Arctic
Invent
Case Registry
Dashboard
Case Explorer
Back to Explorer
Update Case Entry
Manually curate individual case documents inside the PostgreSQL engine.
Case Lawsuit Title
*
Case / Trial ID Number
Jurisdiction Code
*
us
in
upc
eu
Category
*
Patent
Trademark
Copyright
Design
Filing Date
Decision Verdict Date
Court / Tribunal
Bench / Panel Judges
Petitioner / Claimant (Plaintiff)
Puma SE
Respondent / Defendant
Tushar Gautam and Ors
Dispute Summary
Puma SE sued Tushar Gautam for trademark infringement, seeking to stop the sale of counterfeit goods bearing the PUMA mark. The court granted a permanent injunction, ordered damages of Rs.3,05,000, and awarded costs of Rs.2,55,900 to Puma SE. The counterfeit goods were also ordered to be forfeited and destroyed. The case highlights the importance of protecting intellectual property rights in India, particularly in the context of counterfeit goods.
Outcome / Ruling
plaintiff_favorable
Verdict Document PDF URL
Full text judgment
[Cites 5 , Cited by 0 ] Delhi District Court Puma Se vs Tushar Gautam And Ors on 3 July, 2026 CS (COMM) No. 369/2025 "PUMA SE Vs. Tushar Gautam and Ors." IN THE COURT OF SH. GAUTAM MANAN DISTRICT JUDGE, COMMERCIAL COURTS-03 SOUTH-WEST, DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI In the matter of: CS (COMM) No. 369/2025 CNR No. DLSW01-006122-2025 PUMA SE PUMA Way 1, Herzogenaurach, 91074 Germany Through its Authorised Representative Mr. Rohit Bisht Pumastore Shop No. F-143 & 144 First Floor Vegas Mall, Sector-14, Dwarka New Delhi ...........Plaintiff Versus 1. Tushar Gautam Proprietor of M/s Babli Chappal / Lovely Shoes 2379, Gali No. 12-13, Lovely Basement, Guru Kripa Chamber, Beadonpura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005. 2. Kishore M/s Kishore Footwear, 2379, Gali No. 12-13, Lovely Basement, Guru Kripa Chamber, Beadonpura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005. 3. Balram Gaur 2368/13, Beadonpura, Karol Bagh, Gurudwara Road New Delhi-110005. 4. Shah Alam 2379, Gali No. 12-13 Beadonpura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005. Judgment 1 of 14 CS (COMM) No. 369/2025 "PUMA SE Vs. Tushar Gautam and Ors." 5. Vijay Goel 2379, Gali No. 12-13 Beadonpura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005. 6. Dharmendra Arora M/s House of Kicks 2368/13, Beadonpura, Karol Bagh, Gurudwara Road New Delhi-110005. 7. Jatin Sachdeva M/s Deep Shoes 2368/B, Beadonpura, Gali No. 12-13 Karol Bagh, Gurudwara Road New Delhi-110005. 8. Sachin Chopra M/s GD Footwear 2368, Gali No. 13 Karol Bagh, Gurudwara Road New Delhi-110005. 9. Yogesh Chauhan 2379, Gali No. 12-13 Lovely Basement Karol Bagh, Gurudwara Road New Delhi-110005. 10. Rajat Sharma 2368, Gali No. 12-13 Beadonpura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005. 11. Aamir 2368, Gali No. 12-13 Beadonpura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005 ... Defendants Date of institution 10.07.2025 Judgment reserved on 26.05.2026 Date of Judgment 03.07.2026 Judgment 2 of 14 CS (COMM) No. 369/2025 "PUMA SE Vs. Tushar Gautam and Ors." JUDGMENT 1. The present commercial suit has been instituted by the plaintiff seeking decree of permanent injunction restraining infringement of trademarks, passing off, copyright violation, rendition of accounts, delivery up, damages and costs. 2. Initially the suit was filed against unknown defendants on the principle of "John Doe", however, pursuant to visit of Local Commissioner to the spot/premises of defendants, the plaintiff company moved application U/o I Rule 10 CPC read with under Order VI Rule 17 CPC which was duly allowed vide order dated 11.09.2025. 3. Matter between plaintiff and defendants no.2 to 11 already stands settled, and thus, the present judgment is confined only to defendant no.1/Tushar Gautam. Brief facts 4. The plaintiff averred that it is a company incorporated under the laws of Germany having its office at PUMA Way 1, Herzogenaurach, 91074 Germany. Plaintiff is engaged in the business of manufacturing, marketing and selling footwear, sportswear, casual wear, apparel and accessories under the trademark/logo PUMA and its associated marks. 5. It is stated that plaintiff is proprietor of trademarks PUMA, PUMA logo, Form Strip and Jumping Cat logo "Puma Judgment 3 of 14 CS (COMM) No. 369/2025 " PUMA SE Vs. Tushar Gautam and Ors ." , form Strip/ , , , , , , , Jumping Cat / , , , , ". The said marks are registered marks of the plaintiff and have been continuously and extensively used by plaintiff in India as well as worldwide. 6. It is further averred that on account of long, continuous and extensive use, wide publicity, sales, collaborations and goodwill, plaintiff's trademarks/logos have acquired immense reputation. Plaintiff has also pleaded that its mark PUMA is included in the list of well-known marks published by Indian Trade Marks Registry. 7. Case of plaintiff is that in the first week of July, 2025, plaintiff came to know that defendant no.1 was dealing in counterfeit footwear, shoes, slippers, sliders, flip-flops and allied/cognate goods bearing marks identical/deceptively similar to plaintiff's registered trademarks. Judgment 4 of 14 CS (COMM) No. 369/2025 " PUMA SE Vs. Tushar Gautam and Ors ." 8. It is alleged that defendant no.1/Tushar Gautam, proprietor of M/s Babli Chappal/Lovely Shoes, was using plaintiff's PUMA Marks on counterfeit goods and was selling/supplying the same in the markets of Delhi in a clandestine manner without issuing proper bills/invoices. 9. It is further averred that adoption and use of plaintiff's trademarks/logos by defendant no.1 is dishonest and mala fide. According to plaintiff, defendant no.1 is attempting to pass off his inferior counterfeit goods as that of plaintiff, thereby causing loss to plaintiff's sale, goodwill and reputation and also resulting in dilution of plaintiff's trademarks. 10.Along with the suit, plaintiff filed an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 CPC seeking ex-parte ad- interim injunction and an application under Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC seeking appointment of Local Commissioner for search and seizure of infringing goods. 11.During pendency of the suit, Local Commissioner was appointed to visit the premises of defendants and seize impugned goods bearing plaintiff's trademark/label. Local Commissioner visited the premises of defendant no.1 along with counsel for plaintiff. 12.As per Local Commissioner's report Ex.PW1/11, counterfeit goods bearing plaintiff's PUMA Marks were recovered from the premises of defendant no.1/Tushar Gautam, proprietor of M/s Babli Chappal/Lovely Shoes. Judgment 5 of 14 CS (COMM) No. 369/2025 " PUMA SE Vs. Tushar Gautam and Ors ." Plaintiff has relied upon recovery of 120 pairs of shoes, 1224 pairs of slippers, total 1344 pairs of counterfeit PUMA shoes/slippers and 85 pieces of packaging material from the premises of defendant no.1. Service of Defendant and Proceedings 13. Summons of the suit were duly served upon the defendant on 25.09.2025. Despite service, defendant no.1 failed to appear and did not file written statement. 14. Vide order dated 08.01.2026 defendant no.1 was proceeded ex-parte. Evidence 15. To prove its case, plaintiff examined PW-1 Sachin Authorized Representative of the plaintiff company. He tendered his evidence by way of affidavit as Ex. PW1/A and relied upon following documents: i. True copy of SPA is Ex. PW1/1. ii. Legal Proceedings Certificate of plaintiff company is Ex. PW1/2. iii. True representation of plaintiff company's trademark/logo "PUMA" on plaintiff's goods is Ex. PW1/3. iv. True representation of impugned goods of defendants bearing trademark/label "PUMA" is Ex. PW1/4. Judgment 6 of 14 CS (COMM) No. 369/2025 " PUMA SE Vs. Tushar Gautam and Ors. " v. List of well-known marks depicting plaintiff's trademark published by Indian Trade Marks Registry is Ex. PW1/5. vi. Printout of WIPO registrations of plaintiff company is Ex. PW1/6. vii. Copy of plaintiff company's website is Ex. PW1/7. viii. Printout of various collaborations of plaintiff company is Ex. PW1/8. ix. Printout of finances of plaintiff company is Ex. PW1/9. x. Printout of various social media platforms of plaintiff company is Ex. PW1/10. xi. Local Commissioner's report is Ex. PW1/11. xii. Plaintiff's affidavit under Order XI Rule 6(3) of Commercial Courts Act read with Section 63 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 is Ex. PW1/12. 16.No other witness was examined by plaintiff. Thereafter, plaintiff's evidence was closed. Arguments addressed by learned counsel for plaintiff have been heard and record has been perused carefully. Analysis and Discussion 17.PW-1 Sachin deposed on oath regarding proprietary rights of plaintiff in trademark PUMA, PUMA logo, Form Strip and Jumping Cat logo, use of said marks by plaintiff, goodwill and reputation attached thereto and infringement committed by defendant no.1. Judgment 7 of 14 CS (COMM) No. 369/2025 " PUMA SE Vs. Tushar Gautam and Ors ." 18.PW-1 has proved his authority to depose on behalf of plaintiff by placing on record true copy of Special Power of Attorney as Ex.PW1/1. There is no challenge to the authority of PW-1. Thus, PW-1 is competent to depose on behalf of plaintiff. 19.PW-1 has proved Legal Proceedings Certificate of plaintiff company as Ex.PW1/2. The said document establishes plaintiff's statutory rights in its registered trademarks. Plaintiff has also placed on record printout of WIPO registrations as Ex.PW1/6. These documents show that plaintiff's marks are registered and protected in India and internationally. There is no material on record to doubt the authenticity of these documents. 20.PW-1 has proved true representation of plaintiff company's trademark/logo PUMA on plaintiff's goods as Ex.PW1/3. The said document shows the manner in which plaintiff uses its marks on its goods. Plaintiff has also proved list of well-known marks published by Indian Trade Marks Registry as Ex.PW1/5, which depicts plaintiff's trademark. The aforesaid documents establish that plaintiff's mark has acquired distinctiveness and reputation. 21.PW-1 further proved copy of plaintiff company's website as Ex.PW1/7, printout of various collaborations of plaintiff company as Ex.PW1/8, printout of finances of plaintiff company as Ex.PW1/9 and printout of various social media platforms of plaintiff company as Ex.PW1/10. These documents show extensive commercial presence, Judgment 8 of 14 CS (COMM) No. 369/2025 " PUMA SE Vs. Tushar Gautam and Ors ." promotion, business activity and goodwill of plaintiff in relation to its PUMA Marks. 22.PW-1 has also proved true representation of impugned goods of defendants bearing trademark/label PUMA as Ex.PW1/4. Comparison of plaintiff's marks shown in Ex.PW1/3 with impugned goods shown in Ex.PW1/4 clearly shows that impugned goods bear marks/logos which are identical or deceptively similar to plaintiff's registered trademarks. The goods in question are footwear, shoes, slippers and allied/cognate goods, which are identical/similar to goods of plaintiff. 23.Local Commissioner's report has been proved as Ex.PW1/11. The said report establishes recovery of counterfeit goods bearing plaintiff's PUMA Marks from premises of defendant no.1. In " Levi Strauss & Co. vs Rajesh Agarwal in RFA 127/2007", Hon'ble Delhi High Court held as under: 10. It is a settled proposition that the Local Commissioner need not be examined in every matter. If any party wishes to examine the Commissioner for whatsoever reason or if the Court wishes to seek any clarification in respect of the Commissioner's report, then the option to examine the Commissioner exists. In Misrilal Ramratan & Ors. Mansukhlal & Ors. v. A. S. Shaik Fathimal & Ors., 1995 Supp (4) SCC 600 the Supreme Court categorically holds that the Commissioner's report cannot be rejected on the specious plea of non-examination of the Commissioner. The relevant portion of the judgement reads as under: Judgment 9 of 14 CS (COMM) No. 369/2025 " PUMA SE Vs. Tushar Gautam and Ors ." "It is now settled law that the report of the Commissioner is part of the record and that therefore the report cannot be overlooked or rejected on spacious plea of non-examination of the Commissioner as a witness since it is part of the record of the case." Similar is the view taken by a Ld. Single Judge of this Court in Harbhajan Singh v. Smt. Shakuntala Devi Sharma & Anr. AIR 1976 DELHI 175. 24.In view of Order XXVI Rule 10(2) CPC and the judgment discussed above, the settled legal position that emerges is that the report of the Local Commissioner can be treated as evidence in the suit where it is not challenged by any party. Accordingly, in the present case the report of the Local Commissioner and the contents therein can be relied upon by the Court as evidence as the same is unchallenged. 25.As per report of local commissioner 120 pairs of shoes, 1224 pairs of slippers and 85 pieces of packaging material were recovered during execution of commission. Defendant no.1 has not appeared to dispute the report of Local Commissioner. There is no other reason to disbelieve the Local Commissioner's report. 26.PW-1 has also proved affidavit/certificate under Order XI Rule 6(3) of Commercial Courts Act read with Section 63 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 as Ex.PW1/12. The said certificate supports admissibility of electronic records relied upon by plaintiff including website, WIPO records, collaborations, financial and social media records. Judgment 10 of 14 CS (COMM) No. 369/2025 " PUMA SE Vs. Tushar Gautam and Ors ." 27.The testimony of PW-1 has remained wholly unchallenged and unrebutted, as there was no appearance or cross- examination on behalf of defendant no.1. Defendant no.1 has not placed on record any license, permission, dealership, authority or any other document to show that he was entitled to use plaintiff's registered trademarks/logos. 28.From unrebutted oral and documentary evidence on record, this Court finds that plaintiff has successfully proved its proprietary rights in PUMA, PUMA logo, Form Strip and Jumping Cat logo. Plaintiff has also proved goodwill and reputation attached to said marks. 29.Evidence on record further establishes that defendant no.1 was dealing in counterfeit goods bearing plaintiff's registered trademarks/logos. Use of identical/deceptively similar marks by defendant no.1 on same/cognate goods is likely to cause confusion and deception in the mind of an ordinary purchaser of average intelligence and imperfect recollection. 30.Acts of defendant no.1 amount to infringement of plaintiff's registered trademarks and copyright. The same also amount to passing off, as defendant no.1 is representing his goods and business as that of goods and business of plaintiff. Such conduct is likely to cause loss to plaintiff's sale, goodwill and reputation and also results in dilution of plaintiff's trademark. Judgment 11 of 14 CS (COMM) No. 369/2025 " PUMA SE Vs. Tushar Gautam and Ors ." 31.The conduct of defendant no.1 in remaining ex-parte further shows that he has no defence to the claim of plaintiff. There is no material on record which may disentitle plaintiff from the relief claimed. In view of unrebutted evidence, plaintiff has proved its case on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities. 32.As regards damages, plaintiff relies upon recovery of 120 pairs of shoes, 1224 pairs of slippers and 85 pieces of packaging material from premises of defendant no.1. Plaintiff has assessed loss on the basis of Rs.1,999/- per pair of shoes and Rs.1,200/- per pair of slippers. The loss has been calculated at Rs.17,08,680/-. However, plaintiff has restricted its claim for damages to Rs.3,05,000/-. 33.Considering the nature of infringement, recovery of counterfeit goods, reputation of plaintiff's marks and conduct of defendant no.1 in remaining ex-parte, damages claimed by plaintiff are reasonable. Plaintiff is therefore entitled to damages of Rs.3,05,000/-. 34.Plaintiff has also claimed costs of proceedings including attorney fee of Rs.1,50,000/-, Local Commissioner fee of Rs.70,000/-, other expenses including transportation expenses of Rs.30,000/- and court fee of Rs.5,900/-. Thus, plaintiff has claimed total costs of Rs.2,55,900/-. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and nature of proceedings, plaintiff is entitled to costs of proceedings quantified at Rs.2,55,900/-. Judgment 12 of 14 CS (COMM) No. 369/2025 "PUMA SE Vs. Tushar Gautam and Ors." Relief 35.In view of the foregoing discussion, suit of plaintiff is decreed in favour of plaintiff and against defendant no.1/Tushar Gautam in following terms: (i) A decree of permanent injunction is passed in favour of plaintiff and against defendant no.1/Tushar Gautam, thereby restraining defendant no.1, his agents, representatives, distributors, assigns, stockists and all others acting for and on his behalf from manufacturing, marketing, selling, storing, distributing, supplying, advertising and/or using the impugned trademark/logo PUMA, PUMA logo, Form Strip, Jumping Cat logo or any other mark/logo/trade dress identical and/or confusingly or deceptively similar to plaintiff's registered trademarks/logos, on footwear, shoes, slippers, sliders, flip-flops, apparel, accessories or any other allied/cognate goods, thereby infringing plaintiff's registered trademarks and copyright. (ii) Defendant no.1 is further restrained from passing off his goods and business as that of goods and business of plaintiff. (iii) A decree in the sum of Rs.3,05,000/- is passed in favour of plaintiff and against defendant no.1 on account of damages sustained by plaintiff due to loss of sale, reputation and goodwill as well as dilution of plaintiff's trademark. Judgment 13 of 14 CS (COMM) No. 369/2025 " PUMA SE Vs. Tushar Gautam and Ors ." (iv) Plaintiff shall also be entitled to costs of proceedings quantified at Rs.2,55,900/-, which includes attorney fee, Local Commissioner fee, other expenses including transportation expenses and court fee, subject to payment of appropriate tax to the authorities, if any. (v) Counterfeit/infringing goods and packaging material seized during execution of Local Commission shall stand forfeited. Plaintiff is permitted to destroy the same after expiry of period of appeal, subject to preparation of inventory/photographs. Decree sheet be drawn. A copy of this judgment be given to the parties to the dispute through electronic mail, if the particulars of the same have been furnished, or otherwise, in terms of Order XX Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure , 1908 (as amended by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 ). File be consigned to Record Room. Announced in the Open Court on July 03rd, 2026. Digitally signed GAUTAM by GAUTAM MANAN MANAN Date: 2026.07.03 13:37:40 +0530 GAUTAM MANAN DISTRICT JUDGE SOUTH-WEST COMMERCIAL COURTS-03 DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI Judgment 14 of 14
Cancel
Update Case