New Delhi, Jul 25 (PTI) An industrialist’s claim that he adopted the mark ‘ADIDAS’ for his textile goods due to his deep admiration for his elder sister cut no ice with the Delhi High Court which restrained him from trading under this name which is deceptively similar to the trademark of Adidas AG, the German manufacturer of sports accessories and apparel.
The high court said the explanation that the mark ‘ADIDAS’ was chosen out of the defendant’s affection for his sister lacks evidentiary support and undermines the claim of honest adoption.
The rationale given by defendant Keshav H Tulsiani for choosing a mark identical to that of plaintiff Adidas AG was that it was rooted in personal affection as he claimed that since childhood, he held deep admiration for his elder sister, addressed as ‘Adi’ in the Sindhi community.
This admiration was so profound that he was commonly described as her devotee (‘Das’ in Sindhi). Consequently, the term ‘ADIDAS’ (to mean devotee of an elder sister) was conceived by combining ‘Adi’ (elder sister) and ‘das’ (devotee), to reflect this familial devotion, the defendant claimed.
Tulsiani is the partner/ director of Adidas Weaving Mills, Adidas Textiles Industries and Adidas Merchandise Private Limited.
However, Justice Sanjeev Narula said when a mark as distinctive and well-known as ‘ADIDAS’ is copied, it can dilute the mark’s distinctiveness and harm the brand’s reputation, irrespective of the differences in the product categories.
“Therefore, the unauthorised use of such a mark by the defendants, especially without evidence of honest adoption must be viewed as an attempt to benefit from the established reputation and goodwill of the plaintiff,” the high court said.
Holding that there was trademark infringement, the court said the plaintiff was entitled to grant of permanent injunction.
It restrained the defendants or anyone acting on their behalf from manufacturing, trading, selling, marketing, offering for sale or dealing in any way in textile piece goods under the ADIDAS mark or any other mark deceptively similar to the plaintiff’s ADIDAS mark amounting to trademark infringement.
The court also awarded Rs 3 lakh damages and Rs 11.22 lakh as cost of litigation to the plaintiff.
The order was passed on a plea by Adidas AG seeking to secure their rights against the use of an identical mark by the defendants for various classes of goods, including textiles. PTI SKV SKV SK
About the Author
