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)
Adidas AG
Respondent / Defendant
Amrit Garments and Others
Dispute Summary
Adidas AG sued Amrit Garments and others for trademark and copyright infringement, seeking an injunction and damages. The court granted an ex-parte judgment, directing the defendants to stop using Adidas' registered trademarks and copyrights. The court also awarded damages to Adidas AG. The defendants were found to be selling counterfeit Adidas products, which were of inferior quality and lacked proper labeling and security features.
Outcome / Ruling
plaintiff_favorable
Verdict Document PDF URL
Full text judgment
[Cites 4 , Cited by 0 ] Delhi District Court Adidas Ag vs Owner/Proprietor, Ix/2935, Gali No. 1, ... on 6 July, 2026 Civil Suit No. 171/2020 Adidas AG V/s. Amrit Garments and Others IN THE COURT OF SH. ANKUR JAIN-II, DJ-02, SHAHDARA DISTRICT, KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI Civil Suit No. : 171/2020 Adidas AG (a company registered in Germany) Having its office at: Adi-dassseler Strasse 1, Beaverton, Oregon 97005-6453, Herzogenaurach - 91074 Also at: - Adidas India Marketing Private Limited Office No. 6, 2nd Floor, Sector B, Pocket No. 7 Plot No. 11, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi - 110070 Through its Authorized Representative. .......PLAINTIFF versus 1. Amrit Garments Through its proprietor Sh. Shiv Narayan S/o Sh. Tilkeshwar Yadav at: S. 79/38, JJ Camp, Nehru Nagar 2. Sh. Santosh Kumar S/o Sh. Khaniya Lal, R/o Pratap Camp, Nehru Nagar, Delhi-110024 Also at: J-27, Central Market, Lajpat Nagar-2, New Delhi - 110024. Digitally signed by ANKUR ANKUR JAIN JAIN Date: 2026.07.06 1 of 10 16:20:16 +0530 Civil Suit No. 171/2020 Adidas AG V/s. Amrit Garments and Others 3. Maximum Outfits (P) Ltd. Through its proprietor Sh. Rajiv at: K-60, Central Market, Lajpat Nagar-2, New Delhi - 110024. 4. M.K Fashion Through its proprietor: Sh. Parvinder Kumar S/o Sh. Roshan Lal R/o 207/9A, rakash Mohalla, East of Kailash, New Delhi - 110065. Shop at: 35/8, Pushpa Market, Lajpat Nagar-2, New Delhi - 110024. .......DEFENDANTS Date of Institution of suit : 08.06.2016 Date of pronouncement of judgment : 06.07.2026 EX-PARTE JUDGMENT: 1. This is a suit for mandatory and permanent injunction, passing off, infringement of trademark and Copyright, rendition of accounts and damages filed by the plaintiff against the defendants. Brief facts:- 2. It is the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff, Adidas AG, is a company incorporated under the laws of Germany and is engaged in the business of manufacturing, marketing and selling sportswear, footwear, apparel and accessories throughout the world, as well as in India through its subsidiary company Adidas India Marketing Private Limited, and has also ANKUR Digitally signed by ANKUR JAIN 2 of 10 JAIN Date: 2026.07.06 16:20:22 +0530 Civil Suit No. 171/2020 Adidas AG V/s. Amrit Garments and Others opened its various showrooms and franchises in various markets of Delhi, including the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. 3. It is further averred that the plaintiff is the registered proprietor and owner of the trademarks "adidas", "3-Stripes", "Three Bars" and "Trefoil", along with the artistic logos associated therewith, which are registered under various classes under the provisions of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 ; that the trademark "adidas" was coined in the year 1949 from the name of its founder, Adi Dassler, and that, owing to its continuous, extensive and uninterrupted use for several decades, the said trademarks and logos have acquired immense goodwill, reputation and distinctiveness worldwide as well as in India. 4. It is further mentioned in the plaint that the said logos constitute original artistic works protected under the Copyright Act ; that the plaintiff company enjoys substantial goodwill and reputation in India and abroad on account of extensive sales, continuous advertising and sponsorship of major international sporting events and renowned athletes; that considerable expenditure has been incurred towards the promotion and advertisement of its products under the aforesaid trademarks, which have become well-known trademarks amongst the purchasing public. 5. It is further averred that during a market survey conducted in the second week of May 2016, it came to know that the defendants were engaged in the manufacture, stocking, distribution and sale of counterfeit garments and allied products bearing the plaintiff's registered trademarks and logos or marks deceptively similar thereto, readily available in the markets of Digitally signed ANKUR by ANKUR JAIN Date: 3 of 10 JAIN 2026.07.06 16:20:28 +0530 Civil Suit No. 171/2020 Adidas AG V/s. Amrit Garments and Others Delhi; that the defendants did not issue any invoices or bills and was conducting his business in a clandestine manner; that upon comparison of the counterfeit products with genuine Adidas products, several distinguishing deficiencies were noticed; that the counterfeit goods lacked genuine security labels, unique security codes, proper MRP labels, care labels and other mandatory product information; that the counterfeit goods were of inferior quality, having poor stitching, substandard finishing, inferior raw material and disproportionate reproduction of the plaintiff's trademarks and logos; that the characteristic three parallel stripes appearing on genuine adidas products had been reproduced in a defective and shoddy manner on the counterfeit goods; that the defendants have dishonestly adopted identical and deceptively similar trademarks and logos with the sole intention of trading upon the goodwill and reputation of the plaintiff, amounting to infringement of its registered trademarks and copyrights, thereby causing wrongful loss to the plaintiff. Hence, the present suit. Proceedings:- 6. Vide order dated 08.07.2016 passed by Ld. Predecessor Court, an application under Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC seeking appointment of Local Commissioners was allowed and separate Local Commissioners to inspect the premises of all the defendants were appointed, and the Local Commissioners were directed to search the respective premises, prepare inventories of infringing goods bearing the plaintiff's trademarks, seize the infringing products and relevant books of accounts, take photographs during execution of the commission, and the respective reports were also filed by the said Local Commissioners in compliance thereof. ANKUR Digitally signed by ANKUR JAIN JAIN Date: 2026.07.06 16:20:31 +0530 4 of 10 Civil Suit No. 171/2020 Adidas AG V/s. Amrit Garments and Others 7. Thereafter, WS filed on behalf of defendants no. 2, 3 & 5 ( defendants no. 1, 2 & 4 herein ) separately pursuant to the summons of the present suit; and no WS was filed on behalf of defendant no.4 ( defendant no.3 herein ), and vide separate statement of AR of the plaintiff recorded on 16.11.2016, the earlier impleaded defendant no. 1 was deleted from the array of parties, pursuant to which the present defendants remained the only contesting parties in the instant suit. 8. Vide order dated 05.08.2024 passed by this Court, following issues were framed:- 1. Whether plaintiff is entitled to decree of permanent injunction, as prayed ? 2. Whether plaintiff is entitled to grant of order of delivering up of the seized/counterfeited goods, as prayed ? 3. Whether plaintiff is entitled to decree of damages/loss of business/rentition of accounts, as prayed ? 4. Relief. 9. AR of the plaintiff was examined as PW-1, who stepped in the witness box and tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/A and relied upon the the documents as follows: - Digitally signed by ANKUR ANKUR JAIN JAIN Date: 2026.07.06 16:20:36 +0530 5 of 10 Civil Suit No. 171/2020 Adidas AG V/s. Amrit Garments and Others Sr. No. Exhibits or Marks Description of Documents. 1. Ex.PW1/1 ( OSR ) Certificate of Incorporation 2. Ex.PW1/2 ( OSR ) Power of Attorney dated 06.01.2016 in favour of deponent. 3. Ex.PW1/3 ( OSR ) Power of Attorney dated 05.11.2019 in favour of deponent. 4. Ex.PW1/4 ( OSR ) Power of Attorney dated 20.01.2014 in favour of Ms. Sarah Talbot. 5. Ex.PW1/5 ( OSR ) Legal Proceeding certificate of trademark no. 511874. 6. Ex.PW1/6 ( OSR ) Legal Proceeding certificate of trademark no. 352655. 7. Ex.PW1/7 ( OSR ) Legal Proceeding certificate of trademark no. 538067. 8. Ex.PW1/8 ( OSR ) Legal Proceeding certificate of trademark no. 826207. 9. Ex.PW1/9 ( OSR ) Legal Proceeding certificate of trademark no. 932043. 10. Ex.PW1/10 Renewal certificate of trademark no. 277696. 11 Ex.PW1/11 Affidavit of Investigator namely Sh. Bablu Singh. 12. Mark A Photograph of counterfeit goods. 13. Mark B Photograph of original products. 10.Thereafter, additional affidavit by way of evidence of AR of the plaintiff namely Mr. Narender Singh/ PW-1 was filed and he tendered his ANKUR Digitally signed by ANKUR JAIN 6 of 10 JAIN Date: 2026.07.06 16:20:40 +0530 Civil Suit No. 171/2020 Adidas AG V/s. Amrit Garments and Others evidence by way of affidavit as Ex.PW1/B relied upon the the documents as follows : - S. No. Exhibit number Document or Mark 1. Ex. PW1/A Report of Ld. Local Commissioner Mr. Sahil. 2. Ex. PW1/B Report of Ld. Local Commissioner Mr. Vardan. 3. Ex. PW1/C Report of Ld. Local Commissioner Mr. Yashpal. 4. Ex. PW1/D Report of Ld. Local Commissioner Mr. Shubhankar. 5. Mark A Screenshots from the Plaintiff's Website. 11.No cross-examination of PW-1 was conducted on behalf of the defendants as they remained ex-parte. 12.Vide separate statement of the AR of the Plaintiff, PE was closed on 18.08.2025, and the matter was listed for ex-parte final arguments. 13.During arguments, Ld. Counsel for the Plaintiff submitted that as per instructions, the plaintiff is not pressing for the relief of punitive damages sought in the present suit, and is only restricting its claim to the relief of injunction and damages pertaining to infringed goods seized by the Ld. Local Commissioners' namely Mr. Sahil A. Garg, Mr. Vardan Gupta, Mr. Yashpal Rangi and Mr. Shubhankar Jha from the premises of the defendants no.1-4 respectively. 14.He further submits that the plaintiff is also not seeking the relief of grant of order of delivering up of the seized / counterfeited goods, as the goods were never in possession of the plaintiff and were on superdari of the Digitally signed by ANKUR JAIN ANKUR Date: JAIN 2026.07.06 7 of 10 16:20:46 +0530 Civil Suit No. 171/2020 Adidas AG V/s. Amrit Garments and Others defendants and now the same are not available as the defendants are already proceeded ex-parte along with the seized goods. 15.Ex-parte final arguments heard. Analysis:- 16.Plaintiff company has filed the present suit for injunction and damages against the defendants on the ground of infringement of trademark and copyright of the goods of the plaintiff company. 17.As per the report of Ld. Local Commissioner namely Mr. Sahil A. Garg, Mr. Vardan Gupta, Mr. Yashpal Rangi and Mr. Shubhankar Jha, Ex.PW1/A to Ex.PW1/D respectively, a total number of 816 items including 317 lowers, 366 shorts, and 133 t-shirts, infringing apparels, tags, labels bearing trademark logo of the plaintiff company, were found and seized at the premises of the defendants, valued around Rs.9,74,500/-, and the said fact has not been disputed on behalf of the defendants, as the defendants did not contest the present suit and remained ex-parte. 18.It is further submitted that out of the above, goods worth around Rs.2,35,000/- were seized by the Ld. Local Commissioner namely Mr. Sahil A. Garg from the premises of defendant no.1 vide his report Ex.PW1/A; goods worth around Rs.3,48,000/- were seized by the Ld. Local Commissioner namely Mr. Vardan Gupta from the premises of defendant no.2 vide his report Ex.PW1/B; goods worth around Rs.1,35,000/- were seized by the Ld. Local Commissioner namely Mr. Yashpal Rangi from the premises of defendant no.3 vide his report Ex.PW1/C; and goods worth around Rs.2,56,500/- were seized by the Ld. Local Commissioner namely Mr. Shubhankar Jha from the premises of 8 of 10 Digitally signed by ANKUR JAIN ANKUR Date: JAIN 2026.07.06 16:20:50 +0530 Civil Suit No. 171/2020 Adidas AG V/s. Amrit Garments and Others defendant no.4 vide his report Ex.PW1/D respectively, and the defendants are liable to pay the said amounts to the plaintiff company respectively towards the wrongful loss caused by infringing and passing of the registered trademark and copyright goods of the plaintiff company. 19.Ld. Counsel for the Plaintiff has also relied upon the judgments titled as 'Sandisk LLC and Anr. Vs. M/s B-one Mobile and Others ' dated 09.04.2019, and 'M.L. Brother LLP Vs. Mahesh Kumar Bhuralal Tanna' dated 12.05.2022 both passed by Hon'ble High Court Of Delhi, to submit that the plaintiff is entitled for the damages claimed in the present suit. 20.Record perused. 21.This Court concurs with the submissions of Ld. Counsel for the Plaintiff as the counterfeit/ infringed goods in question were found and seized from the premises of the defendants by the respective Ld. Local Commissioners, as stated above, and neither the said fact has been contested on behalf of defendants nor the defendants have disputed the quantum of damages sought by the plaintiff in the instant suit, and the averments of the PW-1 have remained unchallenged and unrebutted in this regard. 22.Hence, the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of permanent injunction and damages against the defendants and the issues no. 1 & 3 are decided in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendants; and since the plaintiff company has not pressed for any relief of grant of order of delivering up of the seized/counterfeited goods, therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled for grant of the said relief, and the issue no. 2 stands disposed of accordingly. Digitally 9 of 10 signed by ANKUR ANKUR JAIN JAIN Date: 2026.07.06 16:20:53 +0530 Civil Suit No. 171/2020 Adidas AG V/s. Amrit Garments and Others Conclusion:- 23.In view of the aforesaid observations, the suit of plaintiff stands partly decreed with costs and the plaintiff is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.2,35,000/- from defendant no.1, a sum of Rs.3,48,000/- from defendant no.2, sum of Rs.1,35,000/- from defendant no.3 and a sum of Rs.2,56,500/- from defendant no.4 respectively along with interest of 6 % p.a. from the filing of the present suit till its realisation towards the damages; and the defendants are further directed not to use the registered trademark and copyright goods of the plaintiff company, or the marks/ logos deceptively and confusingly similar to the logo/ mark of the plaintiff company, on the apparels and the other accessories in any manner whatsoever. 24. Let a decree sheet be prepared in the aforesaid terms. 25.File be consigned to record room, after due compliance. Digitally signed by ANKUR ANKUR JAIN JAIN Date: Announced in the Open Court 2026.07.06 16:20:57 on 06th day of July, 2026. +0530 ANKUR JAIN-II DISTRICT JUDGE - 02 SHAHDARA, KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI 10 of 10
Cancel
Update Case