Back
Darzi (India) LLP Secures Injunction as Restrains 'Men's Darzi' Mark
The has granted an in favor of Darzi (India) LLP, restraining a clothing business from using the mark “Men’s Darzi,” its accompanying logo, or any identical or mark in relation to goods and services, including clothing and apparel. The order, passed by Justice A. J. Bhambhani on , came after the court found that the plaintiff had made out a , that the lay in its favor, and that refusal of interim protection could cause .
The dispute centers on the use of the word “Darzi,” which the plaintiff claims as its proprietary trademark. Darzi (India) LLP told the court that it holds a registration for the composite mark “The Darzi The Suit People, 1981” and also possesses a registration for the word mark “DARZI” dating back to 2018. The clothing business had applied to register “Men’s Darzi” as a trademark on . However, the rejected that application, , in view of an objection raised by Darzi (India) LLP, according to a Trade Mark Journal/order dated .
Despite the refusal of registration, counsel for the plaintiff argued that the defendant continued to use the “Men’s Darzi” mark. Counsel submitted that the word “Darzi” formed a prominent part of the impugned mark and that such use amounted to . On a preliminary appreciation of the matter, the court observed that the plaintiff had made out a and that the lay in its favor. It further observed that “ would be caused to the plaintiffs if the as prayed-for is not granted.”
The court also directed the plaintiff to comply with the requirement of an within three weeks. This provision requires a party obtaining an injunction without prior notice to take specified steps to serve the order and related documents on the other side. The suit and application are listed before the Joint Registrar on , and the court will hear the matter thereafter.
Background: The ‘Darzi’ Trademark Portfolio
The plaintiff, Darzi (India) LLP, has built a reputation in the bespoke tailoring and clothing industry under the brand “Darzi.” Its registrations include both a word mark and a composite mark featuring the tagline “The Suit People, 1981,” indicating use since 1981. The trademark “DARZI” (word mark) was registered in 2018, giving the plaintiff a statutory monopoly over the term in relation to clothing and related services.
The defendant, a clothing business whose identity was not disclosed in the interim order, applied to register “Men’s Darzi” in July 2020. The rejected that application in November 2024, citing the plaintiff’s prior rights. Despite the rejection, the defendant allegedly continued using the mark, prompting the plaintiff to seek judicial intervention.
Key Developments: The Ex-Parte Injunction
Justice Bhambhani’s order is significant for its swift recognition of the plaintiff’s rights. Ex-parte injunctions are granted only in exceptional circumstances where the plaintiff can demonstrate a strong , urgent need, and the likelihood of irreparable harm. Here, the court was satisfied on all three counts.
The court noted that the plaintiff’s registered mark “DARZI” predates the defendant’s application and that “Men’s Darzi” incorporates the entirety of “Darzi” as a prominent element. The phonetic and structural similarity between the marks creates a among consumers, especially in the clothing and apparel sector where brand recognition is critical.
Legal Analysis: Standards for Ex-Parte Injunction in Trademark Cases
Trademark law in India, governed by the , allows courts to grant interim injunctions to prevent infringement pending . The three-pronged test—, , and irreparable injury—is well-established. In this case, the plaintiff’s prior registrations, the rejection of the defendant’s application by the Registrar, and the continued use despite that rejection collectively strengthened the plaintiff’s case.
The court’s reliance on the fact that “Darzi” forms a prominent part of the impugned mark aligns with the principle of “” or “” under Section 2(1)(h) of the Act. Even if the defendant adds the word “Men’s,” the dominant feature remains “Darzi,” which is likely to cause confusion or deception among consumers who associate the word with the plaintiff.
Impact on Legal Practice
For trademark practitioners, this order serves as a reminder of the importance of promptly enforcing trademark rights. The plaintiff acted swiftly after the rejection of the defendant’s application, and the court’s willingness to grant an ex-parte injunction underscores the value of prior registrations. The case also highlights the evidentiary weight of a Registrar’s rejection order—while not binding on the court, it can support a .
Additionally, the order reinforces that trademark owners need not wait for a full trial to stop infringing use. The availability of ex-parte relief can be a powerful tool, especially against defendants who continue using a mark after a failed registration attempt.
Conclusion
The ’s interim order provides immediate relief to Darzi (India) LLP and sends a strong message to businesses that adopt marks incorporating well-known trademarks. With the matter set for further hearing in December 2026, the defendant will have an opportunity to contest the injunction. For now, the clothing business must cease using “Men’s Darzi” in any form, and the plaintiff’s rights over the “Darzi” brand remain protected pending .
This case is a textbook example of how courts balance competing interests in trademark disputes, prioritizing the protection of registered marks while ensuring that interim measures are not granted without due process. As the proceedings unfold, the legal community will watch for any further clarifications on the scope of “” when a prefix is added to a well-known mark.
