Summary
Adidas AG initiated a trademark infringement and passing-off suit after discovering widespread counterfeiting of its branded socks in Delhi. The Delhi High Court found Adidas had a strong prima facie case, noting the unauthorised manufacturing, storage, and sale of socks bearing Adidas’ registered marks and the absence of genuine security features. The Court granted an ex-parte injunction, restraining the defendants from further infringing acts and appointed a Local Commissioner with broad powers to seize counterfeit goods and inspect records. The order was directed to be kept confidential for three weeks to ensure effective execution. This case demonstrates the Court’s prompt and robust response to intellectual property violations.
Background
Adidas AG filed a trademark infringement and passing-off suit after discovering large-scale counterfeiting of its branded socks in Pooth Khurd, Delhi. During an investigation in July 2025, an authorised representative found:
-
- A manufacturing unit with more than ten machines producing socks bearing the “adidas” word mark, three-stripes device, performance logo and other Adidas marks as well as those of other brands.
- A warehouse stocking these counterfeit goods.
- Sale of two pairs of counterfeit socks for ₹100, without any invoice.
A signboard reading “S.S. Products” was displayed at the manufacturing unit, but Adidas could not ascertain the identity of the individuals behind the operation. Hence, the defendant was impleaded as “Ashok Kumar”, following the John Doe/Ashok Kumar procedure. Adidas sought urgent ex-parte injunctive relief and appointment of a Local Commissioner for seizure and inspection.
Plaintiff’s Contentions
Adidas contended that:
-
- It is the registered proprietor of the Adidas marks, the three-stripes device, the performance logo, and the trefoil, which are well-known marks with transborder reputation.
- The defendant was manufacturing, storing, distributing, and selling counterfeit socks bearing identical or deceptively similar marks.
- The counterfeit packaging falsely listed “Adidas India Marketing Pvt. Ltd.” as manufacturer, aggravating the likelihood of consumer deception.
- The counterfeit goods lacked Adidas’ QR-based security labels used on genuine socks.
- Urgent action was necessary to prevent further sale, dispersal of goods, and destruction of evidence.
Adidas therefore sought an ex-parte injunction restraining the infringing activities and appointment of a Local Commissioner to seize counterfeit goods and inspect records.
Court’s Findings
After examining the pleadings, photographs, and physical samples of both genuine and counterfeit socks produced in court, the Delhi High Court held that Adidas had established a strong prima facie case of trademark infringement and passing off. The Court further held that prior notice under Order XXXIX Rule 3 CPC would defeat the purpose of the injunction given the likelihood of evidence being moved or destroyed.
Decision
Ex-Parte Injunction
The Court restrained the defendant, its associates, agents, employees, and representatives from:
-
- Using the Adidas marks and any other deceptively similar mark.
- Manufacturing, storing, selling, or distributing counterfeit socks or accessories bearing these marks.
Appointment of Local Commissioner
A Local Commissioner was appointed with broad powers to:
-
- Visit the manufacturing unit and warehouse along with two representatives of Adidas including a lawyer.
- Inspect and seize infringing goods, packaging, blocks, dies, labels, advertising material, unfinished goods, and other connected items.
- Examine and obtain copies of account including books, ledgers, invoices, digital records, and stock registers.
- Take photographs and videography of proceedings.
- Break open locks and seek police assistance if access was denied.
The seized goods were to be released on superdari after inventory. The order was directed not to be uploaded for three weeks to ensure effective execution of the commission.
Citation: Adidas AG v. Ashok Kumar Unknown & Ors., In the High Court of Delhi on 20th August 2025, CS (COMM) 868/2025 & I.A. 20309-13/2025. Available at: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/101807689/
