Two websites and a shop, all trading as “Wrestle Zone”, sold replica WWE merchandise while presenting themselves as official retailers. WWE sued, the defendants didn’t turn up, and the Delhi High Court made clear what that costs.
How WWE found them
World Wrestling Entertainment took action against unauthorised distributors selling counterfeit merchandise in India. The defendants ran the websites wrestlezoneindia.com and wrestlezone.co.in, along with a physical shop called “Wrestle Zone”, falsely holding themselves out as official WWE merchandise retailers.
WWE discovered the operation on finding the defendants’ website in November 2012. A private investigator then purchased T-shirts from the shop, which WWE’s team authenticated as replicas. On that footing, WWE sued for a permanent injunction based on trademark and copyright infringement.
The investigator purchase is the part worth noticing. It converts a suspicion about a website into admissible evidence of an actual infringing sale, with a product in hand that the rights holder can examine and depose to. In counterfeiting cases that step usually does more work than anything else in the file.
The rights infringed
The defendants’ conduct violated WWE’s registered trademarks “WORLD WRESTLING ENTERTAINMENT” and the WWE Scratch Logo, together with copyright in WWE character imagery. WWE licenses these products across multiple categories — including apparel and media — throughout India.
That licensing programme matters legally as well as commercially. Where a rights holder runs an authorised merchandising network, an unauthorised seller claiming official status damages both the marks and the licensees who paid for the right.
The outcome
The court concluded WWE was entitled to protection and granted a permanent injunction against the defendants.
On damages, WWE sought ₹10 lakh. Justice Singh awarded ₹5 lakh, with the observation that a party who chooses not to participate in court proceedings and stays away must suffer the consequences. The court additionally imposed ₹1 lakh in costs.
The remark is the durable part of the judgment. Defendants in counterfeiting suits frequently calculate that ignoring proceedings is cheaper than defending them. Here, non-appearance did not reduce the exposure — it produced an injunction, damages and costs, decided on the plaintiff’s uncontested evidence.
The lesson
The point is straightforward: obtain proper licensing before using someone else’s intellectual property. Unauthorised use invites exactly this kind of enforcement — and for a rights holder with a registered portfolio, well-documented licensing and investigator evidence, these actions are comparatively quick to run.
The takeaways
- Posing as an official retailer compounds the infringement — trademarks and copyright both.
- Investigator purchases build the case — an actual infringing sale beats a screenshot.
- Non-appearance carries consequences — the court said so expressly.
- ₹5 lakh damages plus ₹1 lakh costs, on a claim of ₹10 lakh.
Frequently asked questions
What did WWE obtain against the counterfeit sellers? A permanent injunction, ₹5 lakh in damages against a claim of ₹10 lakh, and ₹1 lakh in costs.
Does ignoring a court summons reduce a defendant’s exposure? No — the court expressly noted that a party choosing not to participate must suffer the consequences, and decided on the plaintiff’s uncontested evidence.
How do rights holders prove counterfeit sales? Commonly through a private investigator’s purchase, with the product then authenticated by the rights holder’s team as a replica.
Is selling replica merchandise both trademark and copyright infringement? It can be — the marks are infringed by the branding, and copyright by reproduction of character imagery on the goods.
Useful official resources
- The Trade Marks Act, 1999
- The Copyright Act, 1957
- Delhi High Court