Delhi High Court grants injunction in favour of Indian fashion designer Rahul Mishra against sale of counterfeit dresses

The plaintiff Rahul Mishra is a leading Indian Fashion designer based out of Delhi and is engaged in creating exquisitely and luxuriously designed and handcrafted fashion clothes/ apparels under his own fashion label ‘RAHUL MISHRA’.

Delhi High Court

Delhi High Court: A suit was filed by Rahul Mishra, a leading fashion designer seeking relief of permanent injunction against the defendant 1, seeking to restrain it from infringing the plaintiff’s trademarks and copyright, passing off its goods as that of the plaintiffs’ and other ancillary reliefs. Amit Bansal, J., grants an injunction in favour of the plaintiff.

The plaintiff 1 is a leading Indian Fashion designer based out of Delhi and is engaged in creating exquisitely and luxuriously designed and handcrafted fashion clothes/ apparels under his own fashion label ‘RAHUL MISHRA’. The plaintiff 2 is a company incorporated and registered by the plaintiff 1 for the purposes of undertaking and executing the artistic designs created by the plaintiff 1 and transforming them into state-of-the-art pieces of luxury designer wear clothing, marketing them as well as selling them under the brand name/ trademark ‘RAHUL MISHRA’. The plaintiff 1 is the registered proprietor of trademarks ‘RAHUL MISHRA’ under various classes, in India, all of which are valid and subsisting.

Plaintiff 1 is the registered proprietor of trademarks ‘RAHUL MISHRA’ internationally as well. The plaintiffs stated that apart from their flagship stores and duly authorized multi-brand retail stores, they also carry on their business through their official domain name/ website www.rahulmishra.in, duly registered, wherein consumers are regularly and constantly updated and kept abreast with every season’s themed collection of their exquisitely designed fashion luxury clothes/ apparels and about all fashion shows/ events wherein plaintiffs have showcased their rendition of seasons collections, all under the umbrella of the plaintiffs’ trade name as well as trademark RAHUL MISHRA/ Rahul Mishra/ RAHUL MISHRA.

The plaintiffs have further averred that the images of various models/ famous personalities posted on its official website as taken during the ramp walk of various fashion events where their handcrafted and exquisitely designed clothes/apparel are original artistic works under Section 2(c) of the Copyright Act, 1957 and thus are entitled to the exclusive rights over the said images under Section 14 of the Copyright Act, 1957. It is also averred by the plaintiffs that exclusive copyrights in the designs of the dresses which includes shape, configuration and surface pattern as contemplated under Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act, 1957 vests in the plaintiffs. It is claimed that, as these dresses are characterized by their luxurious exclusivity, and painstakingly handcrafted embroidery work, only a limited number of such articles/ dresses are thus produced and marketed by plaintiffs.

The main grievance arises that in the third week of October 2024, the plaintiffs came to know that the defendant 1 is engaged in selling and/or offering to sell the impugned counterfeit dresses through the following impugned website ‘www.rahudress.com’ offering to sell exact replicas of plaintiffs’ designer wear at a phenomenally low discounted price.

The plaintiffs submitted that the defendant 1’s domain name has been registered and identical images/photographs showing identical dresses/apparel have been copied and posted by the defendant 1 on its impugned website, stating it to be that of the plaintiffs and then offering to sell such counterfeit dresses at a meagre price, thereby resulting in copyright infringement of the original artistic work in the photographs as well as infringement of copyright in the design of the said dresses, capable being registered under the Designs Act, 2000.

Counsel for plaintiff submitted that on perusal of image comparisons, the images/photographs posted on the impugned website of the dresses have been lifted from the ramp shows of the plaintiff and/or fashion news websites such as Vogue Runway’s e-website. The defendant 1 has copied the entire form, look, pattern, style, cut and arrangement, using the plaintiff’s tradename/trademark to misrepresent it to be an authentic design of the plaintiff to the public at large, at less than a fraction of the original price. Such acts of the defendant 1 constitute trademark infringement, copyright infringement, design piracy, passing off, unfair competition and leads to dilution of the goodwill and thus, is a clear attempt to ride upon the goodwill of the plaintiffs.

The Court noted that plaintiff 1 is the registered proprietor and along with the plaintiff 2, are users of the trademark ‘RAHUL MISHRA’ as well of the domain name ‘ www.rahulmishra.in’ Further, the plaintiff 1 is also the owner of the copyright in the original artistic works and also the copyright in the designs of the dresses under the Copyright Act, 1957.

The Court concluded that the plaintiffs have been able to make out a prima facie case for grant of an ex-parte ad-interim injunction, which is also a dynamic injunction. The balance of convenience lies in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants. Irreparable injury shall be caused to the plaintiffs if the interim injunction is not granted. Disclosure orders are also liable to be passed against the defendant 2 DNR.

Thus, the Court restrained defendant 1 from using, soliciting, manufacturing, selling, offering for sale, importing, exporting and advertising in any manner including on the internet and e-commerce platform, directly or indirectly dealing in goods impugned Tradename/mark “Rahul Mishra” as well as the device mark “ RAHUL MISHRA or impugned tradename/mark and device that is identical/deceptively similar to Plaintiff’s Tradename/mark “Rahul Mishra” as well as the device mark “ RAHUL MISHRA.

[Rahul Mishra v John Doe, CS(COMM) 1194/2024, decided on 24-12-2024]


Advocates who appeared in this case:

Mr. J. Sai Deepak, Senior Advocate with Ms. Meenakshi Ogra, Mr. Tarun Khurana, Mr. Samrat S. Kang, Mr. Amarjeet Kumar, Mr. Rishi Vohra, Mr. Rajat Sabu and Ms. Chhavi Pande, Advocates for plaintiff

Join the discussion

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *