Delhi HC rules in favour of Adidas AG, restricts three local firms from using 'ADIDAS' mark

The Delhi High Court has prohibited three local firms—Adidas Weaving Mills, Adidas Textile Industries, and Adidas Merchandise—and their directors from manufacturing, trading, selling, or dealing in textile goods under the 'ADIDAS' mark or any other marks that are deceptively similar to the trademark of Adidas AG, a German sports and apparel company.

Justice Sanjeev Narula's court also allocated damages of Rs 14.22 lakh to Adidas, as reported by Economic Times. This sum includes nominal damages of Rs 3 lakh and litigation costs of Rs 11.22 lakh that Adidas incurred over the 13-year duration of the trademark infringement case.

The defendants, who were selling goods branded as ‘ADIDAS’, argued that the adoption of the trademark was “bonafide and honest”. They explained that their rationale for choosing a mark identical to that of the plaintiff Adidas “is rooted in personal affection”.

The defendant side further submitted that they chose the name because “Defendant No. 1 (Keshav Tulsiani, partner/director of Adidas Weaving Mills, Adidas Textile Industries and Adidas Merchandise) held deep admiration for his elder sister, addressed as ‘ADI’ in the Sindhi community. This admiration was so profound that he was commonly described as her devotee (‘Das’ in Sindhi). Consequently, the term “ADIDAS” (to mean devotee of elder sister) was conceived, combining ‘ADI’ (elder sister) and ‘DAS’ (devotee), to reflect this familial devotion.”

The defendants also contended that the plaint should not be entertained on grounds of territorial jurisdiction, arguing that they neither reside nor conduct business within the jurisdiction of Delhi. They also cited delays in filing the suit and noted that they use the mark in all uppercase while the plaintiff uses it in all lowercase.

However, the court held that the high court has territorial jurisdiction, considering the plaintiff company's argument that the defendants conduct their business through their wholly owned subsidiary, ADIDAS India Marketing, located in Satbari, New Delhi.

Regarding the issue of delay—the defendants claimed they have been using the mark since 1987—the court held that the burden of proof lies with the defendants and that they failed to provide any evidence to support their claim.

Ruling in favor of Adidas AG, the court found that the defendants' use of an identical mark, combined with the similarity between the goods—textiles and garments—“creates a real likelihood of confusion.” The court noted that the word ‘Adidas’, being a coined term with no inherent linguistic meaning and a unique word, “has a high degree of distinctiveness and is afforded broad protection under trademark law.”