Skechers USA Inc and ors. v. Pure Play Sports - (High Court of Delhi) (25 May 2016)

Distinct logo cannot rescue copycat emulating overall trade dress

MANU/DE/1297/2016

Intellectual Property Rights

Delhi High Court rejected submissions by Pure Play Sports that the similarity in designs between its shoes and those of the Plaintiff Skechers was sufficiently offset by their different logos.

Under the spotlight were Skecher’s ‘GOwalk 3’ line of shoes that have been extensively advertised in magazines and newspapers in India. The company claimed exclusive ownership of intellectual property in various aspects of the shoes, which it claimed to incorporate unique technologies and the company’s distinctive trade dress.

The court rejected Pure Play’s argument that its title was distinct from that of Skechers. It observed that though both the Plaintiff’s and Defendant’s marks were inscribed in the inner sole of their respective footwear, similarity in visual presentation would confuse the unwary consumer. Justice Sanghi proffered, “word marks of the parties are printed on the inner sole is not what catches the attention of a consumer looking to buy a stylish shoe…"selling point" of these shoes in their catchy colour combinations, and texture combinations, coupled with their cuts and stitching styles”.

Pure Play was held to have failed to explained satisfactorily why its products adopted a visual representation mimicking that of Skechers. It was unable to allay the suspicions that its shoe designs were as a result of a capricious imitation of Plaintiff’s products. Submissions that its shoes were priced significantly lower than Plaintiff’s also proved fruitless.

Relevant : Kemp and Company v. Prima Plastics Ltd. MANU/MH/0027/1999 Kellogg Company v. Pravin Kumar Bhadabhai & Anr. MANU/DE/0233/1996

Tags : SKECHERS PURE PLAY SPORTS SHOES TRADE DRESS DISTINCT LOGO