Protecting Logos and Designs: IP Lessons from the Skechers Case

In Skecher pvt. ltd v. Manmeet Singh Trading case, Bombay High Court (“BHC”) granted an ex parte interim injunction preventing the defendants from misusing Skechers’ trademarks and artistic works on deceptive goods, observed that it is a strong prima facie case for infringement of trademarks and copyright. In this blog, the author examines how companies protect their Intellectual Properties (“IPs”) through judicial enforcement in the light of the Skepcher case.

Introduction

A company's logo and design are more than just visual components in today's cutthroat market; they are potent representations of its identity and reputation. Unauthorised imitation damages years of brand development and innovation in addition to misleading consumers. ‘IP’ protection is now a commercial need rather than an option as counterfeiting cases increase. The ruling in Skechers South Asia (P) Ltd. v. Manmeet Singh Trading (“Sketchers Case”)[i] demonstrates how copyright and trademark rules protect innovation in the marketplace.

The trademark and copyright are aspects of the ’IP’ rights which are sought by big business houses and companies to protect their reputation and goodwill. The ‘BHC’ in the Skechers’ case has granted relief to Skecher pvt. Ltd (“Skecher”), which has filed the petition to issue an injunction against the defendant who allegedly infringed the copyright and trademark rights of the company. The blog seeks to examine how ‘IP’ rights are protected by big companies and what the various laws in India are that govern the ‘IP’ protection.

Understanding the Legal Tools

Trademark Protection

A trademark is a word, logo, sign, or visual symbol generally used by giant companies and big business houses to differentiate their products and services from other businesses that offer similar services. These are registered under the Trademark Protection Act, 1999 (“1999 Act”) to protect their brand names, signs or logo from unauthorised imitation. For trademark registration, the applicant is required to file an application with the Registrar of Trademarks under section 18 of the 1999 Act. It is crucial to get your trademark registered as it prevents other entities from misrepresenting their mark and ensures the safety of your trademark with your organisation.

Unlike a patent, which extends to 20 years, the duration of a trademark is 10 years, provided it can be renewed every year for an indefinite period, like a patent.[ii]. Though the registration of a trademark is not mandatory but once registered, the owners get multiple benefits. When a person uses your trademark without your authorisation or permission, it amounts to infringement of your registered trademark as per Section 29 of the 1999 Act. If there is any trademark infringement, then only a registered trademark will get protection. As per section 135 of the 1999 Act[iii], the court can either issue a permanent injunction, grant damages or grant relief of profit to the party who has suffered monetary loss. Moreover, section 103 of the 1999 Act provides relief when a criminal suit is instituted. The punishment for it may be from 6 months to a maximum of 2 years, and a fine may be imposed from Rs. 50,000 to 200000.[iv]

Copyright Protection

The copyright is the legal right of creators, authors, musician, and any person who creates or innovates something new.[v]As per section 55 of The Indian Copyright Act, 1957 (“1957 Act”) protects the intellectual rights of the creators who have used their intellect and brain power to create the work.[vi] The duration of this tight extends to the life of the original owner plus up to 70 years after the death of the owner.

The owners of the content have the exclusive right to use their content in any way they want; no one else can take advantage of their content, as it will constitute the case of copyright infringement, and will be punished for civil and criminal offences. Under section 55 of the 1957 Act, the defendant will be issued an injunction or will incur other civil liabilities. Moreover, section 63 of the ‘1957 Act’ led to criminal punishment either in the form of imprisonment from a minimum of 6 months to a maximum of 3 years or a fine would be imposed that can very between 1 lac to 2 lac. In Skepcher case, the court has issued an ex parte injunction restraining the defendant from using the plaintiff’s trademark and artistic work for it commercial benefit.

Analysing the Remedies through Skechers South Asia Pvt. Ltd. v. Manmeet Singh Trading[vii]

The case came to surface because of a suit filed by the plaintiff, Skecher, a shoe-making company, against the defendant who has infringed the trademark ‘S’ of the plaintiff company and copyright mark ‘SKECHER’. The plaintiffs contended that the defendants has copied their trademarks and artistic works, showing the impugned goods identical or fraudulently similar to the goods of the plaintiff. The counsel for the plaintiff argued that the defendants acted dishonestly, copying the quality of the goods. Therefore, they sought an ex parte ad interim injunction to prevent further infringement by the defendant.

The court ruled that it is a strong prima facie case of counterfeiting of goods and trademark and copyright infringement on the part of the defendant and noted that ‘balance of convenience’ is in favour of plaintiff. The court therefore issued an ex parte injunction under section 103 of the ‘1999’ in order to restrain the defendant from misusing the trademark and artistic work of the plaintiff.

The Court also appointed a Court Receiver, under Order XL Rule I[viii] and Order XXXIX Rule 7 of ‘Civil Procedure Code’ 1908. He was granted all powers except sale and directed to search the defendant’s premises, break locks, and seize the counterfeited goods and if required, take police assistance to do the same.

Practical Lessons from the Skecher’s case

The Sketchers case is a lesson for all of us in the realm of trademark and copyright infringement, where the ‘BHC’ has granted relief to the Skecher by issuing an ex parte injunction to restrain the defendant from misusing the trademarks of other companies. The Skecher is a company that prepares shoes and sells them with multiple registered logos like ‘S’ and ‘SKECHER’.

The first thing we have learnt is that always register your trademark and copyright material to get protection under section 29 of the 1999 Act. Secondly, A company or any business house, whenever it faces the issue of copyright or trademark infringement, should act quickly to file a complaint against the defendant, whether known or unknown. Thirdly, always keep design files, trademark registrations and usage records well prepared to produce before the court. Fourthly, always register copyright as well as trademark to strengthen the protection. Fifthly, companies or business houses operating globally should register their rights country by country to remove loopholes of infringement. And last but not least, raise awareness about counterfeit and authenticity checks so that no one would be duped by false brand names and counterfeit goods

Conclusion

In ‘ Sketchers case"[ix], the court has upheld the legacy of effective ‘IP’ rights protection, which are intangible forms of property, cannot be touched or felt, but still have legal protection. Companies may have their trademarks in any form, such as logo, designs, words, letters, visuals or any other symbols, provided that they are registered under the 1999 Act. If anyone is found to infringe these rights, companies can immediately move to the Court either for civil or criminal remedies under the statutory framework.

In the instant case, the court has protected the trademark and artistic work of Skecher by issuing an injunction till further orders and appointed a court receiver to seize all counterfeited goods from the defendant's premises. Therefore, it is said that proactive registration, continuous monitoring, and swift enforcement are key to maintaining brand value and trust for the company.

REFERENCES:

[i] Interim Application (L) No. 32420 of 2025

[ii] Bombay High Court grants ex-parte injunction to Skechers in trade mark and copyright dispute over counterfeit goods, SCC Online (Oct. 25, 2025). https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2025/10/25/bom-hc-grants-ex-parte-relief-to-skechers-in-trade-mark-case/

[iii] Trademark Protection Act 1999, section 35.

[iv] Section 103, Trademark Protection Act 1999.

[v] Bombay High Court grants ex-parte injunction to Skechers in trademark and copyright dispute over counterfeit goods, SCC Online (Oct. 25, 2025). https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2025/10/25/bom-hc-grants-ex-parte-relief-to-skechers-in-trade-mark-case/

[vi]Anjaneya Reddy N M & Lalitha Aswath, Understanding Copyright Laws: Infringement, Protection and Exceptions(2016) (unpublished manuscript), available on ResearchGate at https://www.researchgate.net/publication/301890434_Understanding_Copyright_Laws_Infringement_Protection_and_Exceptions.

[vii] Interim Application (L) No. 32420 of 2025

[viii] Civil Procedure Code 1908

[ix] Supra.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR: This piece is written by Layba Rana, Who is a law student. She is also serving as Newsletter Head for the Fairlex.