Introduction:

In a significant move to safeguard intellectual property, the Delhi High Court passed a John Doe order to protect the copyrights and registered trademark of renowned Indian fashion designer Rahul Mishra. Justice Amit Bansal issued an interim injunction to prevent the sale, manufacture, and advertisement of counterfeit dresses and outfits resembling Mishra’s original designs. The order also extended to online platforms, highlighting the Court’s commitment to protecting the rights of designers against counterfeiting in the digital marketplace.

Arguments:

Rahul Mishra, a prominent designer, filed a suit against an unidentified individual (John Doe) engaged in selling counterfeit versions of his dresses through the website ‘www.rahudress.com.’ The plaintiff argued that the defendants had replicated the images of his original designs and were marketing them under the “Rahul Mishra” trademark, leading to both copyright infringement and violation of trademark protection. Mishra contended that the counterfeit dresses, offered at discounted prices, were causing irreparable harm to his brand reputation and business. Mishra, as the registered owner of the “Rahul Mishra” trademark and copyright holder of the original artistic works and designs, emphasized the need for immediate judicial intervention to prevent further damage.

Judgment:

The Delhi High Court, after examining the plaintiff’s case, found that Mishra had made out a prima facie case for granting an ex-parte ad interim injunction. The Court observed that Mishra’s intellectual property rights were being violated by the sale of counterfeit goods, and if immediate relief was not granted, irreparable injury would be caused. In response, the Court issued a John Doe order, directing the suspension of the domain name ‘www.rahudress.com’ and ordering the defendants to disclose identifying information about the infringing parties. The Court ruled that the balance of convenience lay in favour of the plaintiff, and the interim injunction was necessary to prevent further infringement. The matter is scheduled for a hearing on April 7, 2025.