ASICS Corporation v. Sachin Sheokand & Another

The plaintiff, M/s ASICS Corporation, is a Japanese corporation engaged in the business of manufacturing, marketing, selling, and trading shoes, clothing, sporting goods, and allied products. The plaintiff claimed to have honestly and bonafidely conceived and adopted the trademark, label, and artistic work comprising the 'ASICS' logo and various ASICS-formative trademarks in 1966. The plaintiff is the registered proprietor of the 'ASICS' trademark in India since at least 08.01.1982 and holds several registrations. The Registrar of Trade Marks accepted and published the mark 'ASICS' as a well-known trademark in Trade Marks Journal No.2131 dated 20.11.2023, and it was subsequently declared a 'Well-Known Trademark' at Serial No.249 in the list maintained by the Office of the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks. The plaintiff claimed to have promoted its products through official websites, social media platforms, and by engaging eminent Bollywood celebrities and sportspersons, including Ms. Shraddha Kapoor, Mr. Tiger Shroff, Mr. Manpreet Singh, Mr. Bhuvneshwar Kumar, Mr. Ravindra Jadeja, and Mr. Jasprit Bumrah, as brand ambassadors.

Defendant no. 2, Mr. Shamsher Gahlawat, trading as MSI Shoes Co., along with the erstwhile defendant no. 1, was alleged to be engaged in manufacturing, selling, retailing, marketing, soliciting, and trading in counterfeit and infringing sports shoes, sneakers, T-shirts, shorts, socks, and other allied goods bearing the mark 'ASICS' and the striped device in a stylised manner identical or deceptively similar to the plaintiff's trademark and label. The plaintiff filed an application under Order VIII Rule 10 read with Order XIII-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking summary judgment against defendant no. 2.

The court noted that defendant no. 2 was duly served but neither entered appearance nor filed a written statement. His right to file the written statement was closed by order dated 07.04.2026. No defence, document, licence, authorisation, explanation, or contrary evidence was placed before the court. The court observed that the failure of defendant no. 2 to appear or file a written statement, by itself, is not treated as an automatic decree, but his non-participation left the documentary and contemporaneous evidence produced by the plaintiff wholly unrebutted. The court found that defendant no. 2 had no real prospect of successfully defending the plaintiff's claims.

On the merits, the court held that the plaintiff's trademark 'ASICS' is a well-known mark entitled to a higher degree of protection. The court relied on the Delhi High Court's decision in Hamdard National (India) v. Sadar Laboratories, which held that the requirement of protection varies inversely with the strength of the mark, and that a well-known mark requires a higher degree of protection against piracy. The court found that the use of the similar ASICS and other formative marks on goods, in the same commercial field, was calculated to represent the goods of defendant no. 2 as those of, or connected with, the plaintiff, and was likely to divert trade and cause injury to the plaintiff's goodwill and reputation. The court concluded that the plaintiff's claim of passing off was also made out.

Regarding damages, the plaintiff sought rendition of accounts and alternatively claimed damages of Rs. 15,28,800/-. However, the court found that the quantified claim was based on estimated value of goods, an assumed manufacturing period of 28 working days, and a 10% profit margin, without supporting documentary or independent evidence. Although the Local Commissioner found 216 pairs of shoes and approximately 1,100 pairs of shoe-upper packets at the premises, the report did not establish the period of manufacture, actual sales, sale price, profits earned, or loss suffered by the plaintiff. The court relied on the decision in Shri Kirit Bhadiadra v. Wings Pharmaceuticals Private Limited, 2025:DHC:11709-DB, and held that while infringement had been established, the plaintiff had not proved the actual loss or profits earned by defendant no. 2. Nevertheless, considering the deliberate infringement of the well-known 'ASICS' mark, the substantial quantity of goods, the apparent manufacturing activity, the obstruction during execution of the commission, and the non-participation of defendant no. 2, the court awarded nominal damages of Rs. 2,00,000/- in favour of the plaintiff and against defendant no. 2.

In its final order, the court allowed the application under Order VIII Rule 10 read with Order XIII-A of the CPC, decreed the plaintiff's suit with costs against defendant no. 2, quantified the cost of litigation at Rs. 1,50,000/- including the Local Commissioner's fee, granted a decree of permanent injunction in terms of para no. 43 (i) and (ii) of the plaint, and awarded damages of Rs. 2,00,000/- in favour of the plaintiff.