&w=3840&q=100)
Birkenstock cracks down on fakes as teams inspect India units: Report
Birkenstock's case is occurring around the same time other shoemakers are in the news in India. Crocs this month secured a court nod to pursue a nine-year-old infringement case, while Prada is facing heat over showcasing sandals similar to ethnic Indian footwear without initially giving credit to India.
Reuters is first to report the Indian case details related to Birkenstock sandals, which have evolved from a counterculture symbol to a trendy fashion item, and are also popular in India.
In May, Birkenstock filed an infringement lawsuit in the Delhi High Court against four footwear traders, four factories and two unnamed individuals. Its complaint stated an internal investigation found counterfeits were being made in rural areas in and around the tourist hub of Agra, and sold locally and exported to other countries.
On May 26, Delhi judge Saurabh Banerjee issued a confidential order that was only made public on the court's website last week. It said 10 local lawyers were appointed as commissioners to visit the suspected factories.
The judge said commissioners can "seize, pack and seal the infringing products", and his order included photographs that Birkenstock submitted showing the alleged counterfeit footwear and shoe boxes with the company's branding.
The visits have been completed and reports were submitted confidentially to the judge, the three people familiar with the matter said on Saturday, asking to remain unidentified. The next hearing in the case is set for October 6.
The visits were conducted in Agra, home to the Taj Mahal, and in India's capital New Delhi, the people said, declining to give further details from their inspection.
Birkenstock did not respond to queries from Reuters and its lawyers from Delhi-based law firm Lall and Sethi declined to comment, citing the pending legal case.
In his May order, Banerjee said he reviewed photographs and samples of the alleged counterfeit products in court, and they "seem like a cheap knock off" of Birkenstock products.
"There is all likelihood of the public getting deceived ... The differences, hardly if any, are not something which can be discernable to the naked eyes," he wrote.
Once popular with hippies, tech enthusiasts and medical professionals, Birkenstock gained widespread attention after Australian actress Margot Robbie wore a pair of pink Birkenstocks in the final scene of the 2023 hit movie "Barbie".
In February, a German court said Birkenstock sandals do not qualify as art and are therefore not protected by copyright, dismissing a lawsuit brought by the German company.
In India, Birkenstock footwear for women is priced between $46 and $233.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
17 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Reuters X account restored in India after suspension over legal demand
NEW DELHI -The Reuters News account on X was restored in India on Sunday, a day after the social media platform suspended it, citing a legal demand. Reuters X account restored in India after suspension over legal demand "At this time, we are no longer withholding access in INDIA to your account," X said in an email to the Reuters social media team, without elaborating. Representatives for X, Reuters and the Indian government did not immediately respond to requests for comment on the restoration of the account. Earlier on Sunday, a spokesperson for the Indian government's Press Information Bureau told Reuters that no Indian government agency had required withholding the Reuters handle, adding that officials were working with X to resolve the problem. A Reuters spokesperson had said the agency was working with X to resolve this matter and get the Reuters account reinstated in India as soon as possible. Reuters World, another X account operated by the news agency which was blocked in India, was also restored late Sunday night. The main Reuters account, which has more than 25 million followers globally, had been blocked in India since Saturday night. A notice told X users that "@Reuters has been withheld in IN in response to a legal demand". In an email to the Reuters social media team on May 16, X said: "It is our policy to notify account holders if we receive a legal request from an authorized entity to remove content from their account." "In order to comply with X obligations under India's local laws, we have withheld your X account in India under the country's Information Technology Act, 2000; the content remains available elsewhere". Reuters could not ascertain if the May 16 email was linked to Saturday's account suspension nor could it determine what specific content the demand referred to, why its removal was sought or the entity that had lodged the complaint. While the email did not specify which entity had made the request or what content they sought to remove, it said X had been advised that in such cases, a user could contact the secretary of India's Information and Broadcasting Ministry. The secretary, Sanjay Jaju, did not respond to requests seeking comment. The 2000 law allows designated government officials to demand the takedown of content from social media platforms they deem to violate local laws, including on the grounds of national security or if a post threatens public order. X has long been at odds with India's government over content-removal requests. In March, the company sued the federal government over a new government website the company says expands takedown powers to "countless" government officials. The case is continuing. India has said X wrongly labelled an official website a "censorship portal", as the website only allows tech companies to be notified about harmful online content. This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Why Jane St ban may not hit trading
SEBI MUMBAI: Markets regulator Sebi's Rs 4,850-crore disgorgement order against global algo-based trader Jane Street group and its temporary ban from Dalal Street - for market manipulation - is unlikely to deter proprietary (prop) firms from trading on domestic bourses. Rather, the clampdown is expected to improve compliance and corporate governance among brokerages and funds that trade with prop funds, market players said. Despite concerns about drop in futures & options volumes in the backdrop of the ban on the US-based foreign fund, Sebi remains steadfast about its stand about strict adherence to its rules by market participants and non-tolerance of any attempt of manipulation, its chairman said. One of the fallouts of the Sebi order was the sharp slide in the stock prices of some of the broking houses and market infra institutions that analysts feel would be affected by a drop in F&O volumes, at least in the short term. On Friday, the day after Sebi's order was released, Nuvama Wealth Management that also has a broking arm, lost over 11% while Angel One, another tech-heavy financial services firm with a robust broking outfit, lost nearly 6%. Among the institutions, BSE, the biggest among the listed bourses, closed 6.4% down while CDSL, the biggest depository, lost 2.3%. Angel One chairman & MD Dinesh Thakkar said, in an email, that over the past few years, retail participation in India's F&O segment had surged about 20 times, something that has fuelled liquidity, volatility, and opportunity. "Proprietary trading desks thrive in such environments, leveraging high-frequency and algorithmic strategies. With millions of active retail traders and deepening institutional activity, India's market opportunity is structural and not cyclical. Also, this is not dependent on any one firm." Sebi officials also feel that there should not be any major market impact from the enforcement action."In the long run, the growth in market confidence, and a free and fair market, should aid responsible investing and capital formation," a Sebi source said. Stay informed with the latest business news, updates on bank holidays and public holidays . AI Masterclass for Students. Upskill Young Ones Today!– Join Now
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
HC grants relief to man facing extradition for theft in Thailand
New Delhi: An Indian citizen fearing arrest or extradition for committing an offence abroad can seek anticipatory bail, has said, granting relief to a man facing extradition proceedings for alleged theft in Thailand. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now Justice Sanjeev Narula, in a recent order, said the man remained accessible and demonstrated his willingness to cooperate with the inquiry. He added that the extradition request could be processed within the statutory framework without forfeiting his right to personal liberty. "Since the alleged offence occurred in Thailand, there is hardly any possibility of the petitioner tampering with evidence or intimidating any witness.... It must be noted that pursuant to the directions of this court, he submitted his passport to the custody of the registrar of this court," the court said. The court said he could be subjected to a conditional order under Section 438 instead of a custodial interlude. "Section 438 of the CrPC is not merely a statutory remedy; it is a procedural safeguard flowing directly from the constitutional command that no person shall be deprived of liberty except by just, fair, and reasonable procedure established by law," the court observed. The court was hearing the plea of Shankesh Mutha challenging a trial court's order rejecting his anticipatory bail plea under BNS read with the Extradition Act. The plea said Mutha worked at a firm in Bangkok in 2013 and returned to India after eight years. However, the company filed a complaint against him in 2021, alleging that he stole eight diamonds worth around 15.16 million baht (Rs 3.89 crore) and fled. The Southern Bangkok Criminal Court issued an arrest warrant, and Thai prosecutors commenced extradition efforts. The high court found merit in Mutha's submission of not having knowledge about any criminal proceedings. "The petitioner has joined the inquiry... and there is no allegation of non-compliance or obstruction on his part," the court said.
