Puma asserts IP rights in the battle against counterfeiters

PUMA SE, one of the world’s leading sports brands has obtained an Enjoining Order from the Commercial High Court of Colombo in Sri Lanka against a suspected counterfeiter.

Puma SE, recently filed a civil action against Naithi Ltd., through its registered Attorneys-at-Law, Sudath Perera Associates, under the Intellectual Property Act No. 36 of 2003 for the infringement of the Intellectual property rights of PUMA SE by the Defendant.

Puma pleaded that Defendant was selling counterfeit products which contained Plaintiff’s registered trademarks “PUMA” and the leaping cat device;  as one of the most renowned sports brands globally, specializing in advanced sportswear and athletic footwear, Plaintiff argued that Defendant, a substantial garment retailer, must have been fully aware or could not plausibly have been ignorant of the fact that the products being sold were counterfeits.

Further stating that the Puma word mark, device mark, and the Form Strip device are synonymous with every sport today across the globe and Defendant’s misuse and adoption of the marks identical and/or very similar to and/or closely resembling the Plaintiff’s trademarks is to create confusion and/or to mislead the public. 

It was also mentioned that genuine Puma products significantly differ in various aspects, such as the quality of materials and craftsmanship, whereas the defendant’s counterfeit Puma products are of inferior quality. Consequently, the distribution of these substandard goods purchased by the public, who mistakenly believe them to be genuine, causes irreparable harm and damage to the plaintiff’s reputation and goodwill.

The matter was supported in Court by facts and law, and Commercial High Court Judge T.G.S.A. Perera upon being satisfied by the Plaintiff’s submissions, granted an enjoining order against the Defendant restraining its agents, employees, representatives and/or anyone claiming under or on its behalf, directly and/or indirectly, in any manner howsoever, from manufacturing, importing, distributing selling, and/or otherwise howsoever dealing in, goods bearing names, marks, signs and/or logos identical to and/or confusingly similar to the Plaintiff’s registered trademarks. Naithi Ltd. has not been legally represented in this matter when it was taken up before the Commercial High Court, and as such, the Court has made an order granting an interim injunction against the said infringing entity as prayed for and fixed the case for the Trial Ex-Parte.

The Plaintiff – the brand owner, was represented in Court by Counsel Manoj Bandara AAL, Nathaya Nanayakkara AAL, Gimhani Hettiarachchi AAL, Lakshani Perera AAL, and Chamathka De Silva AAL instructed by Sudath Perera Associates.