Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
C. Hari Shankar, J.
Silvermaple Healthcare Services Private Limited & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
Dr Ajay Dubey & Ors. – Respondents
CS(COMM) 570 of 2023, I.A. 15595 of 2023 & I.A. 15596 of 2023
Decided On : 28-08-2023
Confidential Information - Trade Marks - Trade Marks Act, 1999 - [10, 16, 35, 442321062, 442321063, 421759879, 421759880, 421759881, 442046105] - The court examined the plaintiffs' prayer for ad interim injunction and found that the defendants had been using the impugned 'DFI' mark for some time, entitling them to file a response before any orders are passed. The defendants undertook to remove all disparaging posts and morphed images from their social media pages. The court issued directions to the defendants to abide by their obligations under the Non-Competitional Confidentiality Agreement (NCCA) and the Severance Agreement, restrained them from making comments on the plaintiffs or the DHI technique, and allowed them to continue providing hair transplant services using the DFI technique, subject to the specified directions. The court also directed the defendants to submit details of the confidential data obtained during the course of employment with the plaintiffs and granted exemption for filing original and certified documents.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs sought ad interim injunction against the defendants for various alleged breaches including trademark infringement, disparaging comments, and breach of confidentiality and non-compete agreements. The defendants had been using the impugned 'DFI' mark for some time, and the plaintiffs alleged that the defendants had solicited their employees and clients, made disparaging comments, and infringed their trademarks and confidential information.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the defendants had used the impugned 'DFI' mark for some time, entitling them to file a response before any orders are passed. The defendants undertook to remove disparaging posts and morphed images from their social media pages. The court issued directions to the defendants to abide by their obligations under the NCCA and the Severance Agreement, restrained them from making comments on the plaintiffs or the DHI technique, and allowed them to continue providing hair transplant services using the DFI technique, subject to the specified directions. The court also directed the defendants to submit details of the confidential data obtained during the course of employment with the plaintiffs and granted exemption for filing original and certified documents.
Issues: Trademark infringement, disparaging comments, breach of confidentiality and non-compete agreements
Ratio Decidendi: The defendants had been using the impugned 'DFI' mark for some time, entitling them to file a response before any orders are passed. The defendants undertook to remove disparaging posts and morphed images from their social media pages. The court issued directions to the defendants to abide by their obligations under the NCCA and the Severance Agreement, restrained them from making comments on the plaintiffs or the DHI technique, and allowed them to continue providing hair transplant services using the DFI technique, subject to the specified directions.
Final Decision: The court issued directions to the defendants to abide by their obligations under the NCCA and the Severance Agreement, restrained them from making comments on the plaintiffs or the DHI technique, and allowed them to continue providing hair transplant services using the DFI technique, subject to the specified directions. The court also directed the defendants to submit details of the confidential data obtained during the course of employment with the plaintiffs and granted exemption for filing original and certified documents.
ORDER
CS (COMM) 570/2023
1. As the recital hereinafter would reveal, the present plaint raises issues that deserve serious consideration.
2. As such, let the plaint be registered as a suit. Issue summons. Summons are accepted, on behalf of the defendants, by Mr. Harkirat Singh. Written statement, accompanied by an affidavit of admission and denial of the documents filed by the plaintiffs be filed within 30 days, with an advance copy to learned counsel for the plaintiffs who had filed application thereto, accompanied by affidavit of admission and denial of the documents filed by the defendants, within 30 days thereof.
3. List before the learned Joint Registrar for completion of pleadings, admission and denial of documents and marking of exhibits on 20 September 2023, whereafter the matter would be placed before the Court for a case management hearing and further proceedings.
IA 15595/2023 [under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2, CPC]
4. By this order, I proceed to decide the plaintiffs' prayer for ad interim injunction. As such, the order would only examine whether, pending decision on the present application, any ad interim directions are or are not required to be issued.
5. Though no caveat was filed by the defendants, I have permitted them to argue, through Mr. Akshay Makhija, learned Senior Counsel. The plaintiffs are represented by Mr. J. Sai Deepak, learned Counsel.
6. Being an ad interim order, discussion of the facts and law would necessarily be brief.
7. Plaintiff 4 possesses the following registrations under the Trade Marks Act, 1999, which are valid and subsisting and are licensed to Plaintiff 1 for use thereof:
| S. No. | Class | Registration No. | Trademark | Date of Registration |
| 1. | 10, 42 | 1759879 | [IMG] | 04.12.2008 |
| 2. | 10, 42 | 1759880 | [IMG] | 04.12.2008 |
| 3. | 10, 42 | 1759881 | [IMG] | 04.12.2008 |
| 4. | 44 | 2046105 | [IMG] | 28.10.2010 |
| 5. | 10, 16, 35, 44 | 2321062 | [IMG] | 24.04.2012 |
| 6. | 10, 16, 35, 44 | 2321063 | [IMG] | 24.04.2012 |
8. "DHI" refers to a technique for facilitating hair growth, known as Direct Hair Implantation. The technique is stated to have been invented and developed by Mr. Konstantinos P. Giotis, founder of the DHI Global Medical Group.
9. Defendant 1 was a dermatologist, employed by Plaintiff 1 vide appointment letter dated 19 September 2011. His employment was last renewed by Plaintiff 1 vide contract dated 13 April 2022, till 30 September 2026. At the time of his employment, a Non-Competitional Confidentiality Agreement (NCCA), dated 19 September 2011, was executed between Plaintiff 1 and Defendant 1. The following clauses of the NCCA are relevant:
" "Confidential Information" means information that is not generally known to the public and that is used, developed or obtained by the First Party in connection with its Business, including but not limited to (i) products or services, (ii) fees, costs and pricing structures, (iii) designs, (iv) analysis, (v) drawings, photographs and reports, (vi) computer software, including operating systems, applications and program listings, (vii) flow charts, manuals and documentation, (viii) data bases, (ix) DHI Know-how & DHI Methods including any new development or innovation or modifications that may take place in the DHI Know- How & DHI Methods during the term of this Agreement (x) accounting and business methods, (xi) inventions, devices, new developments, methods and processes, whether patentable or non- patentable and whether or not reduced to practice, (xii) customers and clients and customer or client lists, (xiii) copyrightable works, (xiv) all technology and trade secrets, (xv) researches and development projects or results, (xvi) financial and sales information of any kind and contemplated activities (including, without limitation, leasing, distribution and sales costs and non- public pricing information), (xvii) current and prospective alliance, marketing and media partners and key individuals;(xviii) relations with its employees (including, without limitation, salaries, job classifications and skill lev
The defendants had been using the impugned 'DFI' mark for some time, entitling them to file a response before any orders are passed. The defendants undertook to remove disparaging posts and morphed i....
A licensee cannot claim disparagement of trademark without the owner present as a party; non-joinder does not justify the rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the acquisition of distinctiveness of a trademark through long use and the grant of interim relief to restrain the defendants from using the tradem....
The court affirmed the registered trademark holder's rights against similar marks and clarified standards for proving prior use and confusion under trademark law.
The termination of a Master Franchise Agreement is valid when substantiated by evidence of substantial underreporting of sales, obstructing compliance with royalty obligations.
Trademark infringement claims must prevent confusion in the marketplace, emphasizing the necessity for injunctions when identical marks are used in overlapping services, particularly in a global cont....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the protection of trademarks and prevention of infringement and passing off, as well as the application of procedural rules under the Civil Procedu....
The plaintiff can establish passing off and infringement under the Trade Marks Act even without direct market presence, provided it demonstrates sufficient reputation and links to its brand.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
