Stamping Out Counterfeits: ASICS Corporation's Trademark Infringement Claim Against Grandstep Enterprises

Stamping Out Counterfeits: ASICS Corporation's Trademark Infringement Claim Against Grandstep Enterprises

Introduction

The Delhi District Court has dismissed a trademark infringement suit filed by ASICS Corporation against Grandstep Enterprises, holding that the plaintiff failed to prove its case against the defendant even by preponderance of probabilities.

Factual Background

ASICS Corporation, a Japanese company, filed a suit against Grandstep Enterprises, alleging trademark infringement and passing off. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant was manufacturing and selling counterfeit goods under its trademark/label. A raid was conducted at the defendant's premises, and an FIR was registered against the defendant.

Contentions of the Parties

Plaintiff's Contentions:

• The plaintiff claimed that the defendant's use of its trademark/label constituted trademark infringement and passing off.
• The plaintiff argued that the defendant's actions were likely to cause confusion among consumers and dilute the plaintiff's trademark.
• The plaintiff sought a decree of permanent injunction, damages, and delivery of infringing materials.

Defendant's Contentions:

• Although the defendant did not appear in court, the court's judgment suggests that the defendant's actions may not have been adequately proven by the plaintiff.
• The defendant's absence implies that they may not have disputed the plaintiff's claims, but the court's decision was based on the plaintiff's failure to prove its case.

Procedural Background

The defendant was served with summons but failed to appear, and the court proceeded ex-parte against them. The plaintiff examined its authorized representative, Ms. Meena Bansal, who testified that the defendant's actions constituted trademark infringement and passing off.

Reasoning & Analysis

The District Judge Lokesh Kumar Sharma observed that the plaintiff's authorized representative was not competent to depose about the facts of the case, as she had no personal knowledge of the facts and had not derived knowledge from any records of the plaintiff company. The court also noted that the FIR, which was the basis of the plaintiff's case, was not duly proved in accordance with the law.

Findings

The court held that the plaintiff had failed to prove its case against the defendant, and the evidence led by the plaintiff was insufficient to grant relief. The court also observed that the law of injunctions is meant to prevent repetition of violation of legal rights, and a single instance of violation does not entitle a person to seek an injunction.

Implications

The court's decision highlights the importance of providing sufficient evidence to prove trademark infringement and passing off. The judgment also underscores the need for courts to be cautious when dealing with ex-parte proceedings.

Final Outcome

The court dismissed the plaintiff's suit with no order as to costs. The court's decision emphasizes the importance of proving a case by preponderance of probabilities, even in ex-parte proceedings.