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
D K Traders
Dispute Summary
Adidas AG filed a suit against D K Traders for trademark infringement and copyright violation. The court granted an ex-parte judgment in favor of Adidas AG, directing the defendant to stop using the registered trademark and copyright goods and awarding damages of Rs.6,45,000/-. The court found that the defendant was selling counterfeit goods bearing the Adidas trademark, which was likely to cause confusion among consumers. The judgment highlights the importance of protecting intellectual property rights in India.
Outcome / Ruling
plaintiff_favorable
Verdict Document PDF URL
Full text judgment
[Cites 5 , Cited by 0 ] Delhi District Court Adidas Ag vs D K Traders on 6 July, 2026 Civil Suit No. 698/2022 Adidas AG V/s. D K Traders IN THE COURT OF SH. ANKUR JAIN-II, DJ-02, SHAHDARA DISTRICT, KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI Civil Suit No. : 698/2022 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 Mohd. Siraj RZ-9/72, Gali no. 12, Tughlakabad, New Delhi-19. .......DEFENDANT Date of Institution of suit : 26.05.2016 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 defendant. Digitally signed by ANKUR ANKUR JAIN 1 of 8 JAIN Date: 2026.07.06 16:21:02 +0530 Civil Suit No. 698/2022 Adidas AG V/s. D K Traders 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 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 Digitally signed by ANKUR JAIN ANKUR Date: JAIN 2026.07.06 2 of 8 16:21:05 +0530 Civil Suit No. 698/2022 Adidas AG V/s. D K Traders 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 defendant was 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 Delhi; that the defendant 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 defendant has 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. Digitally signed by ANKUR JAIN ANKUR Date: JAIN 2026.07.06 16:21:09 +0530 3 of 8 Civil Suit No. 698/2022 Adidas AG V/s. D K Traders Proceedings:- 6. Vide order dated 30.05.2016 passed by Ld. Predecessor Court, an application under Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC seeking appointment of Local Commissioners was allowed and separate Local Commissioners were appointed to inspect the premises of the defendant, including the other defendant M/s D.K. Traders owned by one Mr. Sachin Kumar Jain, 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. 7. That subsequently, both the defendants appeared through their counsel pursuant to the summons of the present suit, and the plaintiff company settled its dispute with the other defendant Sachin Kumar Jain proprietor of D. K Traders, whereby the plaintiff company has received Rs.1,35,000/- in cash out of court from the said Sachin Kumar Jain towards damages and litigation cost, and the said settlement agreement was placed on record, marked as Ex.CW1/A and matter stood disposed off as settled qua the said defendant, and vide order dated 23.08.2017, the name of the said defendant was deleted from the array of parties, and the trial was directed to continue against the present defendant. Digitally signed by ANKUR ANKUR JAIN JAIN Date: 2026.07.06 16:21:13 +0530 4 of 8 Civil Suit No. 698/2022 Adidas AG V/s. D K Traders 8. Thereafter, after the present defendant was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 11.09.2018 passed by Ld. ADJ-03, SHD, KKD, Delhi, and the matter was listed for ex-parte PE. 9. On 06.04.2022, AR of the plaintiff was examined in chief and he led his evidence and stepped in the witness box as PW-1 and tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/A and relied upon the the documents i.e. (1) Copy of certificate of incorporation of the plaintiff company is Mark A; (2) Copy of Power of attorney in my favour as Ex. PW1/1 (OSR); (3) Copy of legal proceedings of trade Marks No. 511874, 352655, 538067, 826207 and 277696 as Ex. PW1/2 to Ex. PW1/6 (OSR); (4) Copy of renewal certificate of trade mark no. 277696 an affidavit under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act as Ex. PW1/7; (5) Affidavit of investigator regarding purchase of counterfeit product by him from defendant no.2 as Ex. PW1/8; (6) Photographs of counterfeit goods produced by the defendant no.2 as Ex. PW1/9 and photograph of original product of the plaintiff as Ex. PW1/10; & (7) Report of the Local Commissioner regarding raid conducted at the premises of the defendant no.2 as Ex. PW1/11. 10.No cross-examination of PW-1 was conducted on behalf of the defendant. Vide separate statement of the AR of the Plaintiff, ex-parte PE was closed on 06.04.2022, and the matter was listed for ex-parte final arguments. 11.Thereafter on 04.12.2023 and 18.08.2025, additional affidavit by way of evidence of AR of the plaintiff namely Mr. Narender Singh/PW-1 was recorded and AR of the Plaintiff tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/B and also relied upon the document exhibited as Ex.PW1/1A Digitally signed 5 of 8 by ANKUR JAIN ANKUR Date: JAIN 2026.07.06 16:21:22 +0530 Civil Suit No. 698/2022 Adidas AG V/s. D K Traders i.e. report of Ld. Local Commissioner namely Mr. Tarun Chaudhary, and screenshots from the plaintiff's website as Mark A. However, no cross- examination of PW-1 was conducted on behalf of the defendant despite given opportunity in this regard. 12.Vide separate statement of the AR of the Plaintiff, ex-parte 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 the plaintiff is only pressing for relief of permanent injunction and damages, as the goods were never in possession of the plaintiff and were on superdari of the defendant and now the same are not available as the defendant was already proceeded ex-parte along with the seized goods. 14.Ex-parte final arguments heard. Analysis:- 15.Plaintiff company has filed the present suit for injunction and damages against the defendant on the ground of infringement of trademark and copyright of the goods of the plaintiff company. 16.As per the report of Ld. Local Commissioner Mr. Tarun Chaudhary Ex.PW1/1A, a total number of 406 infringing track pants, 30 infringing shorts, 2000 infringing Adidas logo and 1000 infringing poly packs, infringing apparels, tags, labels bearing trademark logo of the plaintiff company, were found and seized at the premises of the present defendant, valued around Rs.6,45,000/-, and the said fact has not been disputed on Digitally signed by ANKUR JAIN ANKUR Date: JAIN 2026.07.06 6 of 8 16:21:26 +0530 Civil Suit No. 698/2022 Adidas AG V/s. D K Traders behalf of the defendant, as the defendant did not contest the present suit and remained ex-parte. 17.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. 18.Record perused. 19.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 defendant by the Ld. Local Commissioner, and neither the said fact has been contested on behalf of defendant nor the defendant has 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. Conclusion:- 20.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.6,45,000/- from the defendant towards the damages and the defendant is 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. Digitally signed by ANKUR ANKUR JAIN Date: 7 of 8 JAIN 2026.07.06 16:21:30 +0530 Civil Suit No. 698/2022 Adidas AG V/s. D K Traders 21. Let a decree sheet be prepared in the aforesaid terms. 22.File be consigned to record room, after due compliance. Announced in the Open Court on 06th day of July, 2026. ANKUR Digitally signed by ANKUR JAIN JAIN Date: 2026.07.06 16:21:33 +0530 ANKUR JAIN-II DISTRICT JUDGE - 02 SHAHDARA, KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI 8 of 8
Cancel
Update Case