Intellectual property protection plays a crucial role in preserving brand integrity and market reputation, particularly in industries where counterfeit products pose a significant threat. The ruling by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in favor of Akemi Chemisch Technische Spezialfabrik GmbH (“Akemi”) underscores the commitment of Indian courts to safeguarding intellectual property rights against counterfeiters.

In this case wherein Akemi was represented by R K Dewan & Co. (“RKD”), resulted in a critical ex-parte ad-interim injunction against the Defendant, restraining them from manufacturing and selling counterfeit products under the Akemi’s trademarks “AKEMI” and “AKEPOX.”

Akemi Chemisch Technische Spezialfabrik GmbH has been a global leader in stone and automotive chemicals for over 85 years. Its products, developed using polyester, epoxy, polyurethane, and epoxy acrylate, have been extensively used by professionals worldwide for bonding, filling, and repairing. Founded in 1933 and rebranded as “Akemi” in 1952, the Plaintiff has cultivated an exceptional market reputation in the natural stone sector. The trademarks “AKEMI” and “AKEPOX” have been legally protected under trademark law, ensuring their exclusivity in India, where the Plaintiff has been exporting since the 1990s.

Akemi discovered that the Defendant was clandestinely manufacturing and distributing counterfeit products under the Akemi’s trademarks in New Delhi and surrounding regions. An independent investigation in June 2024 confirmed these activities. Additionally, it was also revealed that the counterfeit products were of substandard quality, posing a significant risk to consumers and tarnishing the Akemi’s well-established reputation.

The Defendant’s use of the impugned trademarks and labels was identical to the Akemi’s registered trademarks, both visually and phonetically. Furthermore, the Defendant also replicated Akemi’s distinctive artistic trade dress and label design, thereby infringing upon its copyright. The counterfeit goods bore the marks “AKEMI” and “AKEPOX 5010,” which were deceptively similar, if not identical, to the Plaintiff’s genuine products.