Nike Wins Trademark Suit: Delhi Court Orders Destruction Of Counterfeit Shoes With Swoosh, Jordan Marks; Awards ₹3.1 Lakh Damages

A Commercial Court in Delhi has ordered the destruction of counterfeit Nike shoes bearing the ‘Swoosh’ and ‘Jordan’ marks and awarded ₹3.10 lakh in damages to Nike Innovate C.V., holding that 3 Delhi based sellers had infringed Nike’s registered trademarks and copyright by using identical or deceptively similar marks.

The judgment was delivered by the District Judge (Commercial)-03, Saket Courts, Balwant Rai Bansal, in Nike’s suit against ‘Fabulous Fashion’, ‘Den Sneakers’ and ‘Sonam Tibet Shop’.

The suit, instituted under Sections 134 and 135 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and Section 55 of the Copyright Act, 1957, sought permanent injunction, damages, delivery-up and other reliefs.

Nike alleged unauthorised use of its trademarks

Nike alleged that the defendants were dealing in footwear, clothing and related products bearing its registered marks, including NIKE, Swoosh, FLYKNIT, NIKE AIR, DRI-FIT and JORDAN, without authorisation.

The company placed before the Court its trademark registrations, evidence of its use and promotional material, along with photographs and other material concerning the defendants’ products.

A comparison chart was also produced to demonstrate the similarity between Nike’s marks and those appearing on the defendants’ goods.

Nike's case was that the defendants had adopted the marks to take advantage of its established goodwill and reputation and were passing off their products as those originating from Nike.

Court finds Swoosh, Jumpman marks copied

On examining the comparison chart, the Court found that the Swoosh device and Jumpman device, among other marks, reproduced the essential features of Nike’s registered trademarks.

The Court observed: "it is quite clear that the impugned trade mark/label i.e. Swoosh device, device of jumpman used by the defendants on their products is identical to the registered trademarks/label of plaintiff in all material aspects."

The Court further found that the defendants had “imitated/copied all the major and essential features” of Nike’s registered marks, making the competing marks “identical or deceptively similar.”

‘Likelihood of confusion cannot be ruled out’

The Court applied the test of deceptive similarity from the perspective of a common person possessing average intelligence and imperfect recollection. It noted that Nike and the defendants were dealing in goods of a similar nature and could cater to the same class of purchasers.

The Court held: "there is every possibility that the said goods would be sold at the same shops and would cater to the same class of the purchasers and thus, the chance of likelihood of confusion cannot be ruled out in such a case and the unwary purchasers and trade are likely to be deceived as to origin of the goods and business."

Court finds intentional infringement and passing off

The Court relied upon the unrebutted testimony of Nike’s witness, supported by the documents placed on record.

It concluded that Nike had established itself as the registered proprietor and prior user of its marks and that the defendants had “intentionally and deceitfully” infringed Nike’s trademarks and copyright in the artwork.

The Court also found that the defendants were passing off their products through the use of deceptively similar marks, observing: “the defendants are passing off their products by prominently using deceptively similar trademark/labels/device as that of the plaintiff on their products, thereby giving an impression in the minds of common man that those products are coming from the house of the plaintiff.”

Accordingly, the Court held that Nike’s trademark and copyright rights were required to be protected by a permanent injunction.

Hundreds of counterfeit products seized

During the proceedings, the Court had appointed three Local Commissioners under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC to inspect the defendants’ premises and prepare inventories of the infringing goods. The inspections resulted in the seizure of substantial quantities of products.

From one premises, 214 pairs of shoes, eight T-shirts, one jacket and two packing materials were seized. From another, the Commissioner recovered 27 pairs of shoes, 28 T-shirts, six jackets and 10 lowers. At the third premises, 39 pairs of shoes and one single shoe bearing the impugned marks were seized.

The Court noted: "The reports of the Local Commissioner clearly show that the substantial amount of counterfeit goods were seized from the defendants’ premises." The seized goods were handed over to the owners or employees of the respective premises on superdari.

Counterfeit goods ordered to be destroyed

The Court directed the defendants to deliver the seized infringing material for destruction. Explaining the need for such a direction, the Court observed: "the infringing goods lying in the custody of the defendants are required to be delivered up by them for their destruction to rule out any possibility of their further circulation in the market."

The final decree covers the seized infringing material as well as other finished and unfinished material bearing the impugned marks, including blocks, labels, display boards, sign boards and trade literature, for destruction and erasure.

The destruction is to be carried out after expiry of the period available to the defendants to file an appeal.

₹3.10 lakh damages awarded

Nike had sought ₹3.10 lakh in damages. It had also initially sought rendition of accounts of profits, but subsequently did not press that relief. 

Having found infringement, the Court held that Nike was entitled to damages, observing: "Since it is held by this Court that the defendants have violated and infringed the plaintiff’s said trademarks/labels and copyright by selling the impugned goods bearing impugned trademarks/labels which are identical/deceptively similar to the registered trademarks/labels of the plaintiff, this Court is of the opinion that the plaintiff company is entitled to damages."

The Court added that the claimed amount “does not appear to be on higher side”, particularly in view of the substantial quantity of counterfeit products recovered during the Local Commissioners’ inspections.

The defendants were consequently directed to pay ₹3.10 lakh jointly and severally to Nike, besides the costs of the proceedings.

Permanent injunction against use of Nike marks

The Court has permanently restrained the defendants and persons acting on their behalf from manufacturing, marketing, selling, advertising or otherwise dealing in products bearing NIKE, FLYKNIT, NIKE AIR, DRI-FIT or JORDAN, or any other mark identical or deceptively similar to Nike’s registered trademarks.

The injunction also covers acts amounting to trademark infringement, passing off and infringement of Nike’s copyright in its labels.

Case Title : Nike Innovate C.V v. Fabulous Fashion And Ors

Date of Judgment: August 25, 2026

Judge: Balwant Rai Bansal