Delhi High Court Grants Dynamic Injunction Against 'John Doe' Website for Infringing 'Rahul Mishra' Trademark & Copyright - 2024-12-24

Delhi High Court Grants Dynamic Injunction Protecting Designer Rahul Mishra from Counterfeit Website

New Delhi: In a decisive move to protect intellectual property rights in the digital age, the Delhi High Court has granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favour of renowned fashion designer Rahul Mishra against an anonymous entity operating a counterfeit-selling website. The court, presided over by Justice Amit Bansal, restrained the 'John Doe' defendant behind www.rahudress.com from infringing on the 'RAHUL MISHRA' trademark and copyrights.

---

Case Background

The suit, CS(COMM) 1194/2024 , was filed by fashion designer Rahul Mishra (Plaintiff No. 1) and his company (Plaintiff No. 2) against an unidentified entity (Defendant No. 1) operating the website www.rahudress.com . The plaintiffs alleged that this website was selling exact replicas of their exclusive, handcrafted designer wear at drastically reduced prices, using their original copyrighted images to deceive consumers.

As the identity of the website operator was unknown, the defendant was impleaded as 'John Doe'. The domain name registrar, GName.com Pte Ltd., was named as Defendant No. 2.

Plaintiffs' Arguments

Senior Counsel J. Sai Deepak, representing Rahul Mishra, argued that the defendant's actions constituted a blatant infringement of multiple intellectual property rights. The key arguments were:

• Trademark Infringement: The defendant was using the well-established 'RAHUL MISHRA' trademark to mislead the public and trade upon the immense goodwill and reputation built by the plaintiffs.
• Copyright Infringement: The rahudress.com website had lifted original photographs of models wearing Mishra's designs directly from fashion shows and official websites like Vogue Runway. These photographs, being original artistic works under the Copyright Act, 1957, belong to the plaintiffs.
• Design Piracy: It was contended that the copyright in the designs of the dresses themselves—including their unique shape, cut, and embroidery patterns—vested with the plaintiffs. As production of these exclusive articles is limited to under fifty units per design, they are protected under Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act.
• Unfair Competition: By selling counterfeit goods at a fraction of the original price, the defendant was not only causing financial loss but also diluting the brand's value and exclusivity.

Mr. Deepak presented a compelling comparison, showcasing identical images used on the plaintiffs' official platforms and the infringing website, highlighting the defendant's malafide intent to pass off counterfeit goods as authentic.

The Court's Order and Reasoning

After reviewing the plaint and the documents submitted, Justice Amit Bansal found that the plaintiffs had successfully established a prima facie case for urgent relief. The court's order underscored the multifaceted nature of the infringement.

In a key excerpt, the judgment notes: > "The defendant no. 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... Such acts of the defendant no. 1 constitute trademark infringement, copyright infringement, design piracy, passing off, unfair competition and leads to dilution of the goodwill..."

Recognizing the irreparable harm the plaintiffs would suffer if the infringing activities were allowed to continue, the court concluded that the balance of convenience lay firmly in their favour.

Final Decision and Directives

The Delhi High Court issued a multi-pronged ex-parte ad-interim injunction with the following key directives:

1. Restraint on Defendant No. 1: The 'John Doe' defendant and anyone acting on their behalf are restrained from using the "Rahul Mishra" trademark, manufacturing, selling, or advertising counterfeit goods in any manner, including online.
2. Dynamic Injunction against the Website: The domain name registrar, GName.com Pte Ltd. (Defendant No. 2), was directed to immediately lock and suspend the domain www.rahudress.com .
3. Disclosure Order: Defendant No. 2 was ordered to disclose all available details of the registrant of the impugned website (name, address, email, IP address, etc.) to the plaintiffs' counsel, enabling them to identify the anonymous infringer.

The court has scheduled the next hearing before the Joint Registrar for February 25, 2025, for completion of pleadings, and before the Court on April 7, 2025. This order serves as a strong deterrent against online counterfeiters and reinforces the judiciary's commitment to protecting intellectual property rights through robust mechanisms like 'John Doe' and dynamic injunction orders.