Author: Adyanshi Kashyap
In the matter of Adidas AG v. Keshav H. Tulsiani & Ors. [CS(COMM) 582/2018], a Single Judge [Sanjeev Narula, J.] of the High Court of Delhi, vide judgement dated July 19, 2024, granted a permanent injunction in favor of the Plaintiff and held that invented and highly distinctive trademarks, such as ADIDAS, warrant stronger legal protection, as such marks are unlikely to be adopted innocently and demand a broader ambit of safeguarding under trademark law.
Section 29(2)(a) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 states “A registered trademark is infringed by a person who…uses in the course of trade, a mark which because of – (a) its identity with the registered trade mark and the similarity of the goods or services covered by such registered trade mark… is likely to cause confusion on the part of the public, or which is likely to have an association with the registered trade mark.” The question of law in this case was whether the replication of a unique and globally recognized mark like ADIDAS suffices to establish infringement even without evidence of actual confusion, as long as the likelihood of confusion and dilution is evident.
The Plaintiff argued that the Defendants’ use of the identical mark ADIDAS for textiles under Class 24 created a high likelihood of consumer confusion, diluted the distinctiveness of its mark, and infringed upon its exclusive rights. The Plaintiff emphasized that ADIDAS is an invented and highly distinctive term with no inherent meaning, warranting maximum protection under trademark law.
The Defendants contended that their adoption of ADIDAS was honest and culturally motivated, citing Sindhi terms meaning “devotee of elder sister.” They further argued that their use of the mark in uppercase letters distinguished it from the Plaintiff’s stylized lowercase mark.
The Court acknowledged that coined terms with no inherent linguistic meaning like ADIDAS are highly distinctive and the likelihood of confusion or deception among the public can be presumed when such a mark is replicated by another party, and held that, “Given the identity of the marks, the allied nature of the goods under Classes 24 and 25, and the significant overlap in trade channels, there is a high likelihood of confusion among consumers. The Defendants have not provided evidence to counter this presumption of confusion or to show honest and distinct commercial use. Therefore, based on the statutory provisions of Section 29(2)(a) of the Act and the factual circumstances of this case, the use of “ADIDAS” by the Defendants on textiles meets the criteria for trademark infringement.”
Disclaimer: Views, opinions, interpretations are solely those of the author, not of the firm (ALG India Law Offices LLP) nor reflective thereof. Author submissions are not checked for plagiarism or any other aspect before being posted.
Copyright: ALG India Law Offices LLP