How a man's devotion to his sister led to a copyright suit by Adidas

The Delhi High Court in a trademark infringement suit filed by sportswear manufacturer Adidas recently had to deal with an unusual defence when a textile industrialist claimed to have adopted the name ‘Adidas’ out of admiration for his elder sister [Adidas AG v. Keshav H Tulsiani & Ors]..The defendant, Keshav H Tulsiani, told the Court that he addresses his elder sister as ‘Adi’ - which means ‘elder sister’ in Sindhi - and his admiration for her was so profound that he usually describes himself as her devotee (Das in Sindhi). Adi (elder sister) and Das (devotee) were combined to coin the term ‘Adidas’ to reflect Tulsiani’s devotion towards his sister, it was argued.However, the High Court was not convinced with the explanation and said such a defence only undermined Tulsiani’s claim of honest adoption of the mark.It went on to restrain Tulsiani and others from manufacturing, selling or dealing in any way with textile goods under ‘Adidas’ marks or any name similar to them..The order was passed by Justice Sanjeev Narula in the suit alleging that Tulsiani and others had adopted the word ‘Adidas’ not only as a trademark but also as part of their tradename for Adidas Weaving Mills, Adidas Textile Industries and Adidas Merchandise Private Limited. .Adidas in its suit explained that its founder Adolf Dassler, who was also known as Adi, had coined the mark ‘ADIDAS’ by combining his name ‘Adi’ with the first three letters of his surname ‘Das’.It was thus argued that Tulsiani had been using the term ‘Adidas’ in bad faith and with dishonest intention. The Court was also told that the parties had been engaged in a dispute over the mark since 1992 before various forms.Besides arguing that he had adopted the mark out of devotion for his sister, Tulsiani contended that there would be no confusion even if the marks are similar, as the global manufacturer has consistently used the mark in all lowercase letters while he was using it in all capital letters..The Court said that Tulsaini had failed to meet the burden of proof to establish prior use of the ‘Adidas’ mark in India. It called the argument on global brand’s use of mark in all lowercase letters “flimsy” and “untenable”.Justice Narula further considered the fact that while Adidas uses the mark for readymade garments, Tulsaini uses it for textiles.“Given the intrinsic relationship between textiles (raw materials) and garments (finished products), the goods are undeniably similar in nature and purpose. This similarity meets the requirement of Section 29(2)(a) of the Act where the identity of the mark and the similarity of the goods covered by the trademark registration can lead to public confusion. The identity of the marks combined with the similarity between the goods— textiles and garments— creates a real likelihood of confusion. Consumers encountering Defendants’ “ADIDAS” branded textiles could logically assume that they originate from or are associated with the same source as the Plaintiff’s “ADIDAS” branded garments due to the use of the identical mark,” he held..The Court added that the legal protection of trademarks is predicated not only on preventing consumer confusion, but also on protecting the owner’s investment in the mark. The unauthorised use of an invented and distinctive mark like ‘Adidas’ not only infringes on the trademark owner’s rights, but also risks diluting the mark’s unique identity, it said.“It was incumbent upon the Defendants to demonstrate that their adoption of the identical mark was honest and in good faith. However, they failed to provide credible justification or evidence to support this claim. While the Defendants submitted a summary of search results for the mark ‘ADIDAS’ to suggest that due diligence was performed through legal services, this documentation was not substantiated. Moreover, the explanation that the mark ‘ADIDAS’ was chosen out of Defendant No.1’s affection for his sister lacks evidentiary support, further undermining their claim of honest adoption”.In this backdrop, the Court held in favour of Adidas and directed Tulsiani to pay litigation costs amounting to ₹11,22,060..Advocates Ranjan Narula, Aishani Singh and Shivangi Kohli represented Adidas. .[Read Judgment]