New Balance Athletics takes action to protect 'NB' mark

New Balance Athletics takes action to protect ‘NB’ mark

The order dated 07.01.2022 is a Delhi High court order wherein New Balance Athletics Inc were the plaintiff and NBStoreInIndia.IN & ors. were the defendants. 


The application in question pertained to the exemption from filing an apostilled (in a legal language that is accepted in all nations) power of attorney. 

The plaintiff, New Balance Athletics Inc, is the proprietor of “NEW BALANCE” concerning footwear and readymade clothing. The mark in question is registered under classes 18 and 25 of the trademark rules, 2017, where the former relates to leather and leather imitations and the latter to clothing, footwear, and headgear. The plaintiff has a considerable reputation and market standing in the Indian market.

The applicant has filed the present application as they are aggrieved by the defendants claiming that they are associated with the plaintiff to the extent that they are using the plaintiff’s registered logo on their websites and . 

Also read: Puma Counterfeit: One Cannot Copy Puma’s Logo Anymore; It’s 2021!


This is a prima facie case of infringement of the plaintiff’s registered mark and an attempt at misrepresenting the association of two entities with an intent of making undue profits and gains at the expense of the consumer public. 

The plaintiff has requested an interim injunction order against the defendants and other entities that are discovered to have been engaging in or carrying out fraudulent activities by passing off as the plaintiff and contended that they should be restrained from using the plaintiff’s mark.

Also read: Global Car Group Granted Ex-Parte Injunction For Trademark Infringement Of CARS24 And 24 Formative Marks


The Court has passed the current order by way of ad-interim relief that the defendants are restrained from using the registered “NEW BALANCE” and “NB” trademarks of the plaintiff in any manner. The Court further denied the defendants from operating through websites that are deceptively similar to that of the plaintiff and thus, violate the plaintiff’s copyright.

— Jhanvi Sahni (Intern), NALSAR University of Law

Disclaimer: This brief is intended to provide general guidance to the subject matter. It does not contain legal advice. For any specific advice/corrections, write to [email protected]


Related Posts