Read Time: 05 minutes

Synopsis

The Delhi High Court, recently, passed a John Doe order in favor of fashion designer Rahul Mishra suspending the operation of a website allegedly selling replicas of dresses. The bench of Justice Amit Bansal held, “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”. 

Rahul Mishra, through Senior Advocate J. Sai Deepak, asserted ownership of registered trademarks RAHUL MISHRA under various Indian and international classes. They operated their business through official stores and their website, www.rahulmishra.in, registered since September 1, 2009. The website showcased seasonal collections and fashion events while preserving copyrights over images and original artistic works under the Copyright Act, 1957.

Rahul Mishra alleged that John Doe launched the website www.rahudress.com to sell counterfeit replicas of their luxury apparel at significantly lower prices. These counterfeit products copied Mishra’s designs, styles, and artistic works, infringing their copyrights, trademarks, and designs.

The court acknowledged Mishra’s prima facie case for an interim injunction. John Doe’s activities, including selling counterfeit goods and misusing Mishra’s trademark, constituted trademark infringement, copyright violations, and unfair competition. John Doe was found to be exploiting Mishra’s goodwill by offering replicas of their designs at reduced prices, thereby diluting the brand’s reputation and causing irreparable harm.

The court, listing the matter for April 7, 2025, passed the following directions:
“i. The defendant no.1 and all others acting by itself and through its directors/proprietors/partners, associates, assigns, heirs, successors, distributors, dealers, wholesalers, retailers, stockiest, agents and all others acting for and on its behalf are restrained 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. 

ii. The defendant no.2 DNR shall immediately lock and suspend the domain name ‘www.rahudress.com’ and maintain the status quo thereof. The defendant no.2 shall also disclose to the plaintiffs, complete details (such as: Name, Address, Email Address, Phone Number, IP Address etc.) of the defendant no.1 as available with it”. 

For Plaintiff: Senior Advocate J Sai Deepak with Advocates Meenakshi Ogra, Tarun Khurana, Samrat S. Kang, Amarjeet Kumar, Rishi Vohra, Rajat Sabu and Chhavi Pande
Case Title: Rahul Mishra v John Doe (CS(COMM) 1194/2024)