Puma obtains enjoining order against counterfeiter

Puma SE, the German sporting giant, has recently obtained an enjoining order against an alleged counterfeiter in Sri Lanka from the Colombo Commercial High Court.

Puma SE, filed action recently in the Commercial High Court of Colombo against CIB Garments Ltd., through its legal representatives, Sudath Perera Associates. The action was filed under the Intellectual Property Act No. 36 of 2003 for sale of counterfeit products by the Defendant. 

Puma pleaded that the Defendant was selling counterfeit products which contained the Plaintiff’s registered trademarks. The Plaintiff being one of the world’s most famous sports brands, manufacturing sophisticated sportswear and athletic shoes pleaded that the Defendant being a large-scale garment retailer was well-aware and/or could not have been unaware that the products sold were counterfeit. 

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

It was further stated that the genuine Puma products are vastly different in most respects, including the quality of the fabrics used, quality of make, etc whereas the counterfeit Puma products sold by the Defendant are of poor quality and as such irreparable loss and damage is caused to the goodwill and reputation of the Plaintiff, by the distribution of inferior goods purchased by the public mistakenly believing the same to be the goods of the Plaintiff. 

When the matter was supported in court, the Colombo Commercial High Court Judge Pradeep Hettiarachchi granted an enjoining order against the Defendant restraining its agents, servants, 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   The Plaintiff – brand owner, was represented in courts by Counsel Manoj Bandara AAL, Arthika Selladurai AAL and instructed by Sudath Perera Associates.