Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Include Word: ?
Searches for this word in Main (Whole) Text
Exclude Word: ?
This word will not be present in Main (Whole) Text
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2026
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
Sort By: ?
In Sort By 'Default', exact matches for text search are shown at the top, followed by the remaining results in their regular order.
RelevanceDefaultDate
TMI Citation
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        -

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        <h1>Court rules in favor of Adidas in 'THREE STRIPES' trademark infringement case, granting injunction and damages.</h1> The court found in favor of the Plaintiffs, M/s. Adidas AG and its Indian subsidiary, in a case involving infringement of their registered 'THREE STRIPES' ... Seeking permanent injunction restraining infringement of trade mark, passing off, unfair competition, for rendition of accounts of profits/damages, delivery up etc. - HELD THAT:- Due to the lack of any defence on behalf of Defendant No. 1, as also the fact that no valid defence has been raised disputing the Plaintiffs' rights in the mark by Defendant Nos. 2 and 3, the suit is liable to be decreed. Accordingly, a decree of permanent injunction is granted in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendants Nos. 1 to 3 in terms of para 34 (a), (b) and (c) of the plaint. The damages are liable to be awarded against the Defendant no. 1. The suit is decreed against Defendant No. 1 for a sum of ₹ 20 lakhs. Insofar as Defendants No. 2 and 3 are concerned, the said Defendants shall pay damages of ₹ 50,000/- each to the Plaintiff. Defendant No. 2 and 3 are willing to handover the seized products to the Plaintiffs representative. Both Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 are directed to hand over the products seized from them by the Local Commissioners to the Plaintiffs' representative on 20th May, 2019 and 21st May, 2019. The costs shall be paid on the date when the Plaintiffs' representative visits the premises of Defendant Nos. 2 and 3. The Plaintiff has suffered heavy costs in the litigation including court fees, fees of the Local Commissioners, cost of investigation, etc. The suit is decreed against Defendant No. 1 with actual costs incurred. Let bill of costs incurred be placed on record by Ld. Counsel for the Plaintiff. The suit is decreed. Issues Involved:1. Infringement of Trade Mark2. Passing Off3. Unfair Competition4. Rendition of Accounts of Profits/Damages5. Delivery Up of Infringing Products6. Permanent Injunction7. Costs and DamagesIssue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Infringement of Trade Mark:The Plaintiffs, M/s. Adidas AG and its Indian subsidiary, Adidas India Marketing Pvt. Ltd., claimed infringement of their registered 'THREE STRIPES' device mark by the Defendants. The 'THREE STRIPES' mark, adopted in 1949, is exclusively associated with the Plaintiffs and registered in India since 1989 in Class 25. The Plaintiffs presented evidence of promotional activities and endorsements by renowned personalities, establishing the mark’s recognition and association with their products. The Defendants were found using a similar 'THREE STRIPES' mark on their footwear, leading to the present suit.2. Passing Off:The Plaintiffs argued that the Defendants' use of the 'THREE STRIPES' mark constituted passing off, as it misled consumers into believing that the Defendants' products were associated with or endorsed by the Plaintiffs. The court noted that the Plaintiffs' mark enjoys substantial goodwill and reputation, and the Defendants' actions could dilute the brand equity of the mark.3. Unfair Competition:The Plaintiffs contended that the Defendants engaged in unfair competition by using the 'THREE STRIPES' mark to benefit from the Plaintiffs' established reputation and marketing efforts without authorization. The court recognized this argument, citing the European Court of Justice's observation that third parties might exploit the reputation and prestige of a well-known mark without compensating the proprietor.4. Rendition of Accounts of Profits/Damages:The Plaintiffs sought an account of profits and damages from the Defendants. The Local Commissioners' reports detailed the seizure of infringing products from the Defendants’ premises, indicating substantial unauthorized use of the 'THREE STRIPES' mark. The court awarded damages against Defendant No. 1 for Rs. 20 lakhs and against Defendants No. 2 and 3 for Rs. 50,000 each.5. Delivery Up of Infringing Products:The court directed Defendants No. 2 and 3 to hand over the seized infringing products to the Plaintiffs' representative on specified dates, ensuring the removal of counterfeit goods from the market.6. Permanent Injunction:The court granted a permanent injunction restraining the Defendants from manufacturing, selling, or offering for sale any footwear or accessories bearing the 'THREE STRIPES' mark or any mark deceptively similar to it. This decision was based on the established ownership and reputation of the Plaintiffs' mark, and the lack of any valid defense from the Defendants.7. Costs and Damages:The court recognized the Plaintiffs' incurred costs in litigation, including court fees, fees of the Local Commissioners, and investigation costs. The suit was decreed with actual costs against Defendant No. 1, and the Plaintiffs were instructed to place the bill of costs on record. The court also ordered Defendants No. 2 and 3 to pay the awarded damages and hand over the seized products to the Plaintiffs' representative.Conclusion:The court's judgment comprehensively addressed the issues of trademark infringement, passing off, and unfair competition, granting the Plaintiffs a permanent injunction, damages, and costs. The decision reinforced the protection of well-known marks and penalized unauthorized use, ensuring the Plaintiffs' rights were upheld.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found