Crackdown against Birkenstock ‘fakes': Delhi HC orders factory inspections in India after footwear brand files lawsuit
Birkenstock's complaint stated that an internal investigation had found lookalike products being manufactured in rural areas around Agra and sold locally as well as exported abroad.
In May, Birkenstock filed an infringement lawsuit in the Delhi HC against four footwear traders, four factories, and two unnamed individuals. On May 26, Justice Saurabh Banerjee of the Delhi High Court issued a confidential order, later made public on the court's website, authorising swift legal action.
The judge appointed 10 local lawyers as court commissioners to visit the suspect locations.
They were directed to 'seize, pack and seal the infringing products.' The order also included photographs submitted by Birkenstock showing alleged counterfeit sandals and packaging carrying its branding.
'There is all likelihood of the public getting deceived,' Justice Banerjee wrote in his order. 'The differences, hardly if any, are not something which can be discernable to the naked eyes.' He noted that the samples 'seem like a cheap knock off' of genuine Birkenstock footwear.
The inspections have since been completed, and confidential reports were submitted to the judge, said three people familiar with the matter, as per Reuters. The next hearing is scheduled for October 6.
The case adds to a growing list of high-profile intellectual property battles in India's footwear sector. Earlier this month, Crocs secured the court's nod to proceed with a long-pending infringement case. Meanwhile, Prada came under criticism for promoting sandals similar to Indian ethnic footwear without initially crediting the country's cultural contribution.
Earlier this year, the Birkenstock faced a legal setback in Germany when a court ruled that its sandals did not qualify as art and were therefore not protected by copyright.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
20 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Abu Salem told to approach SC for clarity on remission in 1993 blasts case
MUMBAI: The Bombay High Court on Monday directed gangster Abu Salem to approach the Supreme Court for clarification on whether he is entitled to remission while serving a life sentence in two Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (TADA) cases, including the 1993 Mumbai serial bombings. Mumbai : Underworld don Abu Salem walks out of the Sessions Court after a hearing in Mumbai on Wednesday. PTI Photo by Mitesh Bhuvad (PTI1_18_2012_000148A) (PTI) {{^userSubscribed}} {{^usCountry}} {{/usCountry}} {{#usCountry}} {{/usCountry}} {{/userSubscribed}} {{^userSubscribed}} {{^usCountry}} {{/usCountry}} {{#usCountry}} {{/usCountry}} {{/userSubscribed}} A division bench of Justice Ajey Gadkari and Justice Rajesh Patil was hearing Salem's plea seeking early release on the grounds that he would complete 25 years of imprisonment by March 31, 2025. Salem argued that his release was mandated under the terms of his 2005 extradition from Portugal, in which the Indian government had given a solemn assurance to Portuguese authorities that he would not be sentenced to death or imprisoned for more than 25 years. {{^usCountry}} {{/usCountry}} {{^usCountry}} {{/usCountry}} The confusion stems from the fact that Salem was arrested in one case on October 11, 2005, and in another on October 24, 2005. He was later convicted in both cases on February 25, 2015, and September 7, 2017, respectively. In July 2024, he had moved a special TADA court seeking a tentative date of release, but the court declined to consider remission, citing the grave nature of the offences. {{^userSubscribed}} {{^usCountry}} {{/usCountry}} {{#usCountry}} {{/usCountry}} {{/userSubscribed}} {{^userSubscribed}} {{^usCountry}} {{/usCountry}} {{#usCountry}} {{/usCountry}} {{/userSubscribed}} {{^usCountry}} In July 2022, while deciding Salem's appeals against convictions in both cases, the Supreme Court observed that Salem's sentence must be computed from October 12, 2005, the date of his arrest, and that he was entitled to release upon completing 25 years in custody. The apex court also stated that the Centre would be bound to advise the President under Article 72 of the Constitution once this term was completed. {{/usCountry}} {{#usCountry}} In July 2022, while deciding Salem's appeals against convictions in both cases, the Supreme Court observed that Salem's sentence must be computed from October 12, 2005, the date of his arrest, and that he was entitled to release upon completing 25 years in custody. The apex court also stated that the Centre would be bound to advise the President under Article 72 of the Constitution once this term was completed. {{/usCountry}} Read More {{^usCountry}} On Monday, however, additional solicitor general Anil Singh contended that Salem was conflating separate conviction periods to claim that he had already completed 24 years and nine months of detention by the time he approached the TADA court. Singh submitted that, as per the Ministry of Home Affairs' calculation, Salem had only completed 19 years, five months, and 21 days of imprisonment. {{/usCountry}} {{#usCountry}} On Monday, however, additional solicitor general Anil Singh contended that Salem was conflating separate conviction periods to claim that he had already completed 24 years and nine months of detention by the time he approached the TADA court. Singh submitted that, as per the Ministry of Home Affairs' calculation, Salem had only completed 19 years, five months, and 21 days of imprisonment. {{/usCountry}} {{^userSubscribed}} {{^usCountry}} {{/usCountry}} {{#usCountry}} {{/usCountry}} {{/userSubscribed}} {{^userSubscribed}} {{^usCountry}} {{/usCountry}} {{#usCountry}} {{/usCountry}} {{/userSubscribed}} Salem's counsel, senior advocate Rishi Malhotra, insisted that both sentences were running concurrently and, taking into account his pre-trial custody, time served, and jail-earned remission, Salem had effectively completed 25 years on March 31, 2025. 'They are not considering my jail-earned remission,' Malhotra told the court. Remission can be granted on various grounds, including good behaviour and completion of a portion of the sentence. However, the high court pointed out that the Supreme Court's 2022 ruling made no mention of remission. 'Do you want us to say something that the Supreme Court has not said?' the bench asked. 'This clarification needs to come from the Supreme Court,' it added. The bench admitted Salem's petition but declined interim relief, stating that it would be heard in due course. {{^userSubscribed}} {{^usCountry}} {{/usCountry}} {{#usCountry}} {{/usCountry}} {{/userSubscribed}} {{^userSubscribed}} {{^usCountry}} {{/usCountry}} {{#usCountry}} {{/usCountry}} {{/userSubscribed}} SHARE THIS ARTICLE ON
Hans India
25 minutes ago
- Hans India
Delhi HC junks Turkish firm's plea against revocation of security clearance
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court on Monday dismissed Turkish-based firm Celebi's pleas challenging the revocation of its security clearance by aviation watchdog BCAS, saying there are 'compelling national security considerations' involved. The Bureau of Civil Aviation Safety (BCAS) on May 15 revoked the security clearance, days after Turkey backed Pakistan and condemned India's strikes on terror camps in the neighbouring country. Justice Sachin Datta on Monday underlined the necessity to eliminate the possibility of espionage or dual use of logistics capabilities which would be highly detrimental to the security of the country, especially in the event of an external conflict. Celebi Airport Services India Pvt Ltd and Celebi Delhi Cargo Terminal Management India Pvt Ltd oversee ground handling and cargo terminal functions at various airports in the country. The court rejected the contention of the petitioners on the denial of principles of natural justice. 'No doubt, the principles of natural justice are sacrosanct; however, it is a compelling constitutional truth that security of the realm is the pre-condition for enjoyment of all other rights,' the court said in its 94-page verdict. It said the authorities are justified in taking prompt and definitive action to completely obviate the possibility of the country's civil aviation and national security being compromised. Ground handling services at airports, the court said, offered deep access to airside operations, aircraft, cargo, passenger information system and security zones. Such unbridled access to vital installations and infrastructure naturally elevates the need for strict security vetting for operators, and their foreign affiliations, it added. 'This is particularly true in the wake of contemporary challenges faced by the country in the security domain, and the escalations/ incidents witnessed in the recent past, with geopolitical factors at play,' the verdict said. The court, as a result, found 'compelling national security considerations' which prompted authorities to take requisite action against the Turkish firm. 'While it would not be inappropriate for this court to make a verbatim reference to the relevant information/ inputs, suffice it to say, that there is a necessity to eliminate the possibility of espionage and/or dual use of logistics capabilities which would be highly detrimental to the security of the country, especially in the event of an external conflict,' it said. The court referred to a Supreme Court judgment observing the executive wing and not the judicial wing possessed the knowledge of India's geo-political relationships to assess if an action is in the interest of India's national security. At the same time, the court noted, the Supreme Court clarified that a judicial review would not be excluded on a mere mention of the phrase 'national security' and state couldn't be allowed to use national security as a tool to deny citizens remedies provided under law. The high court was also 'acutely conscious' that the state must not be allowed to invoke national security as a ruse to deny procedural due process. Once national security considerations were found to exist, on the basis of which the security clearance has been cancelled or revoked, it is not for the court to 'second guess' the same, the high court said. The verdict found the twin tests set out in an apex court decision to be satisfied in the present case with the state justifying the involvement of national security considerations besides the abrogation of principles of natural justice.
Time of India
29 minutes ago
- Time of India
Brics 2025: 'We don't want an emperor,' says Brazil's Lula; slams Trump tariffs, hints at dollar alternative
AP photo Brazilian President Lula da Silva took a sharp dig at Donald Trump as the Brics summit wrapped up on Monday: "The world has changed. We don't want an emperor". His words came just hours after the US President took to his familiar playbook of tariff threats, warning the bloc of extra duties if they took what he branded as "anti-American" positions. The warning? A 10 per cent tariff against Brics nations -- unless, of course, they looked for their interest rather than American interest! In his trade salvo on Sunday night, Trump said that this administration was preparing to finalise dozens of bilateral deals before a self-imposed July 9 deadline. But the developing powers weren't biting. "This is a set of countries that wants to find another way of organising the world from the economic perspective," Lula said, according to news agency Reuters, adding, "I think that's why the Brics are making people uncomfortable." According to a source familiar with the matter, the White House isn't planning to slap that 10 per cent tariff immediately. But if the bloc's policies appear "anti-American," the trigger could be pulled. At the Rio summit's close, Lula doubled down on his call for a diversified global economy. He took aim at the dollar's dominance in international trade, saying: 'The world needs to find a way that our trade relations don't have to pass through the dollar.' by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like An engineer reveals: One simple trick to get internet without a subscription Techno Mag Learn More Undo 'Obviously, we have to be responsible about doing that carefully. Our central banks have to discuss it with central banks from other countries,' he clarified. 'That's something that happens gradually until it's consolidated.' In February, Trump had already warned of '100 per cent tariffs' on the Brics nations if they dared undermine the dollar's role. That same threat seems to have cooled the bloc's ambitions for a common currency, an idea floated last year but quietly parked under Brazil's current presidency. Other Brics members offered a more diplomatic response to Trump's outburst. South African president Cyril Ramaphosa said the bloc 'does not seek to compete with any other power,' and voiced optimism about reaching a trade understanding with the US. Over in Beijing, Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson Mao Ning was characteristically measured: 'Tariffs should not be used as a tool for coercion and pressuring,' she said, noting that the Brics favours 'win-win cooperation' and 'does not target any country.' The Kremlin, for its part, reminded reporters that its work within the Brics reflects a "common world view" that "will never be directed against third countries". Without naming the US, the Brics group in Rio, including India, raised "serious concerns" about the rise of tariffs which it said were 'inconsistent with WTO (World Trade Organisation) rules.' The restrictions 'threaten to reduce global trade, disrupt global supply chains, and introduce uncertainty," the group said in a statement even as there was confusion even in Washington about the efficacy of the Trump approach.
