Arjan Dugal Wins Interim Injunction Against Former Employee for Copyright Infringement

Arjan Dugal Wins Interim Injunction Against Former Employee for Copyright Infringement

Introduction

The Delhi High Court has granted interim relief to designer Arjan Dugal's clothing label in a suit filed against a former employee, Shubham Gandhi, over alleged infringement of his trade dress and original artistic work. The court restrained Gandhi from dealing in any garment or product whose embroidery, silhouettes, accents, linings, color scheme, and overall look and feel is identical or deceptively similar to Dugal's trade dress.

Factual Background

Arjan Dugal's clothing label, which was launched in 2014, is known for its unique visual language and design sensibility. Shubham Gandhi, a former employee of Dugal, started operating under the brand name 'So.Man' and allegedly copied Dugal's signature aesthetics, including tone-on-tone embroidery, distinctive neckline cut, in-built pocket squares, and up-turned cuffs.

Procedural Background

The case was heard by Justice Tejas Karia, who issued summons on the main suit and granted interim relief to Dugal. The court appointed a Local Commissioner to seize infringing stock, catalogues, and promotional material, secure the confidential client database, and inventory the stock and accounts related to infringing sales.

Issues

The primary issues before the court were:

1. Trade Dress Infringement: Whether Shubham Gandhi's use of similar trade dress constitutes infringement of Arjan Dugal's rights.

2. Copyright Infringement: Whether Shubham Gandhi's use of similar designs and aesthetics constitutes copyright infringement.

Contentions of Parties

Arjan Dugal: Dugal contended that Shubham Gandhi's act of copying his signature aesthetics is an attempt to undercut his business and cause irreparable harm to his brand.

Shubham Gandhi: There is no reported contention from Shubham Gandhi.

Reasoning & Analysis

The court observed that:

• Prima Facie Case: A prima facie case has been made out on behalf of the plaintiffs for grant of an ex-parte ad-interim injunction.
• Irreparable Injury: Irreparable injury would be caused to the plaintiffs if an ex-parte ad-interim injunction is not granted.

Implications

The court's decision highlights the importance of protecting intellectual property rights, including trade dress and copyrights. The judgment underscores the need for businesses to respect the intellectual property rights of others and avoid any actions that could be seen as infringing on those rights.

In this case the plaintiff was represented by Mr. Chander M. Lall, Mr. Devanshu Khanna, Ms. Harsshita Pothiraj, Mr. Partheshwar Singh and Ms. Annanya Mehen, Advocates.