{"id":115089,"date":"2025-01-15T08:00:30","date_gmt":"2025-01-15T02:30:30","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/?p=115089"},"modified":"2026-03-05T12:22:41","modified_gmt":"2026-03-05T06:52:41","slug":"shoes-footwears-and-deceptive-similarity-in-trademark-law","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/shoes-footwears-and-deceptive-similarity-in-trademark-law\/","title":{"rendered":"Shoes, footwears and deceptive similarity in Trademark law"},"content":{"rendered":"

In the case of New Balance Athletics, Inc. v. Pulkit Khubchandani, <\/em>the Delhi High Court granted a permanent injunction and awarded costs and damages in favor of New Balance Athletics, Inc. (“New Balance”), a global footwear manufacturer. The suit concerned Pulkit Khubchandani’s, trading as Kiran Shoe Company (the defendant) unauthorized use of marks resembling New Balance\u2019s registered trademarks, including “N Device” and “550,” on footwear.<\/p>\n

New Balance, established in 1906, contended that its trademarks had acquired immense goodwill and reputation through decades of use and extensive marketing, both globally and in India. The defendant was found manufacturing and selling footwear bearing marks nearly identical to New Balance\u2019s trademarks through various platforms, including e-commerce websites and social media. Evidence revealed that the defendant adopted these marks with the intent to boost sales by creating an association with New Balance\u2019s products, which are priced higher.<\/p>\n

The Court had earlier granted an ex-parte ad interim injunction on May 28, 2024, restraining the defendant from using the infringing marks. A Local Commissioner was appointed to execute a search and seizure operation at the defendant’s premises, resulting in the confiscation of a large quantity of counterfeit products. Despite the defendant\u2019s undertaking to cease the infringing activities and destroy the counterfeit goods, the Court found that his actions were deliberate and mala fide, aimed at leveraging New Balance\u2019s reputation.<\/p>\n

The Court held that the defendant’s use of the infringing marks was likely to confuse consumers and dilute the distinctive character of New Balance\u2019s trademarks. The defendant\u2019s claim of ignorance was dismissed, and the Court emphasized that the adoption of the marks was neither bona fide nor honest.<\/p>\n

In its final judgment, the Court decreed in favor of New Balance, granting a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from using the infringing marks or any deceptively similar marks. The defendant was directed to destroy the confiscated counterfeit goods in the presence of New Balance\u2019s representative. Additionally, the Court awarded \u20b95,00,000 in costs and \u20b92,00,000 in damages to New Balance, to be paid within four months.<\/p>\n

Citation:<\/strong> New Balance Athletics, Inc. v. Pulkit Khubchandani, CS(COMM) 452\/2024 & I.A. 30633\/2024 (H.C. Delhi Oct. 21, 2024). Available at: https:\/\/indiankanoon.org\/doc\/150681248\/<\/p>\n

Authored by Gaurav Mishra, BananaIP Counsels<\/strong><\/p>\n

Disclaimer<\/strong><\/h4>\n

The case note\/s in this blog post have been written by IP Attorneys at BananaIP Counsels based on their review and understanding of the Judgments. It may be noted that other IP attorneys and experts in the field may have different opinions about the cases or arrive at different conclusions therefrom. It is advisable to read the Judgments before making any decisions based on the case notes.<\/p>\n

If you have any questions, or if you wish to speak with an\u00a0IP expert\/attorney<\/a>, please reach us at:\u00a0contact@bananaip.com<\/a>\u00a0or 91-80-26860414\/24\/34.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The Delhi High Court granted a permanent injunction in favor of New Balance Athletics, Inc., restraining Kiran Shoe Company from infringing its trademarks. The Court awarded \u20b97,00,000 in damages and costs, emphasizing that the defendant’s actions were deliberate and aimed at leveraging New Balance\u2019s reputation.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":12,"featured_media":115090,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"iawp_total_views":40,"footnotes":""},"categories":[5495,6,11],"tags":[1679,6487,5614,6488,41,1151,932],"class_list":["post-115089","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-case-reviews","category-intellectual-property","category-trademarks","tag-counterfeit-goods","tag-delhi-high-court-judgment","tag-ip-enforcement","tag-new-balance","tag-trademark-infringement-2","tag-trademark-law-in-india","tag-trademark-violation"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/115089","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/12"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=115089"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/115089\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":148287,"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/115089\/revisions\/148287"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/115090"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=115089"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=115089"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=115089"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}