Delhi High Court Protects “BATA” From Counterfeiters, Directs Flipkart To Remove Infringing Listings

The Delhi High Court on 8 July granted an ex-parte ad interim injunction in favour of Bata India Limited, restraining the two individuals from selling or promoting footwear under the BATA trademark.

A Bench of Justice Jyoti Singh also directed Flipkart Internet Pvt. Ltd. to remove the infringing listings, holding that identical marks and identical goods are likely to cause confusion and constitute prima facie infringement and passing off. She observed:

“The marks being identical and the rival goods being identical, the trade channels and the consumers will be common and confusion is to be presumed and prima facie case of infringement is made out under Section 29(3) of 1999 Act.”

Bata India Limited had approached the High Court against Lalli Devi and another individual, who were allegedly selling footwear bearing the BATA mark through Flipkart. The company informed the Court that its authorised representative discovered the impugned listings in the third week of May 2026 and issued a cease and desist notice to the first defendant on 21 May 2026.

To verify the authenticity of the products, Bata placed an order on 3 June 2026. The footwear delivered on 6 June 2026 was found to be counterfeit, despite falsely claiming to have been manufactured and marketed by Bata India Limited.

A search of the Trade Marks Registry revealed that neither defendant had any registration or pending application for the BATA mark. Bata submitted that its trademark had been declared “well-known” by the Allahabad High Court in Bata India Limited v. Pyare Lal & Co. Meerut City & Ors. (1985).

The High Court found merit in Bata's case, noting that the company was the registered proprietor of the BATA mark and its formative marks, “which have been used since 1931, when the mark was first adopted.”

It further observed that the distinctiveness of the mark had been judicially recognised by the Allahabad High Court through its declaration as a well-known mark under Section 2(1)(zg) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.

On the issue of passing off, the Bench held that the defendants' conduct appeared intended to "misrepresent to the public that the goods belong to the Plaintiff or are being sold owing to some association thereof," thereby causing irreparable harm to Bata's goodwill and reputation.

Accordingly, the High Court restrained Defendants No. 1 and 2, along with any John Doe parties acting on their behalf, from “selling, offering for sale any footwear/goods, advertising or promoting any product under the trademark BATA.” It also directed Flipkart Internet Pvt. Ltd., arrayed as Defendant No. 3, to remove the infringing URLs within 36 hours.

The matter will be next heard on 4 November 2026.