The Bombay High Court granted ex parte ad interim relief to Skechers in a trademark infringement case against a company accused of selling counterfeit goods. The court’s decision aims to protect Skechers’ brand from unauthorized use and ensure that consumers are not misled by fake products. This ruling highlights the importance of safeguarding intellectual property rights in the competitive footwear market.
Mumbai: The Bombay High Court granted ex parte ad interim relief to Skechers, a global footwear brand, in a case of alleged trademark infringement.
The court determined that the defendants’ goods were counterfeits that had unlawfully appropriated the plaintiffs’ trademarks and artistic works. This ruling made during an interim application in a commercial IPR suit, where the plaintiffs sought an ex parte order out of concern that notifying the defendants would lead them to dispose of the counterfeit items.
Justice R.I. Chagla remarked,
“The adoption of the plaintiffs’ trademarks and artistic works in relation to the impugned goods by the defendants is dishonest.”
Advocate Hiren Kamod represented the appellant in this case.
The plaintiffs initiated a lawsuit for trademark and copyright infringement against the defendants, claiming unauthorized use of their ‘SKECHERS’ brand and other associated trademarks and artistic designs.
Plaintiff No. 2 is engaged in designing and marketing footwear, apparel, and accessories, while Plaintiff No. 3 owns the trademark rights for ‘SKECHERS’ and similar trademarks, which have been licensed to Plaintiff No. 1 for distribution in India. An investigation revealed counterfeit products bearing the plaintiffs’ trademarks at the defendants’ locations, which were determined to be imitation items not produced by the plaintiffs.
Consequently, the plaintiffs sought an ex parte order, worried that notifying the defendants would lead them to dispose of the counterfeit goods.
The court noted that the plaintiffs established a reputation and goodwill associated with their trademarks and artistic works. It stated that if the requested reliefs were not granted, the plaintiffs would suffer or be likely to suffer irreparable harm, loss, and injury.
The court described the defendants’ use of the plaintiffs’ trademarks and artistic works concerning the impugned goods as dishonest. As a result, the court determined that notifying the defendants before issuing the current order would undermine the purpose of granting ad interim relief.
Read Also: MakeMYTrip Vs. Booking.com: Supreme Court Dismisses Trademark Infringement Plea
The court clarified that the order would not prevent the defendants from selling original or legitimate goods bearing the plaintiffs’ trademarks and artistic works that had been affixed by the plaintiffs or authorized individuals, provided they were sourced from legitimate suppliers.
However, the order would apply to all other products, bags, invoices, signboards, and materials bearing the plaintiffs’ trademarks and artistic works that were not authorized by the plaintiffs.