Summary
Satyam Fashion, the registered proprietor of an embroidered kurta design, sought to restrain Meesho Technologies and its marketplace sellers from selling an allegedly infringing product through an interim injunction before the Commercial Court at Surat. Meesho resisted the suit by challenging the validity of the design registration itself, pointing to its own product listing and a customer review that predated the registration application. The Commercial Court rejected the injunction plea without addressing this challenge to validity, prompting Satyam Fashion to appeal. The Gujarat High Court set aside that rejection, holding that Section 22(4) Designs Act made transfer of the entire suit to the High Court mandatory once cancellation was raised as a defence, following the Supreme Court's ruling in S.D. Containers Indore v. Mold-Tek Packaging Ltd. This ruling reinforces that a Commercial Court cannot weigh interim relief once a defendant challenges the underlying registration's validity within the same suit.
Background
A registered design gives its owner a monopoly that lasts only as long as the registration itself withstands scrutiny, and Indian courts have repeatedly made clear that a defendant cannot be forced to fight an infringement suit while the validity of that very monopoly remains untested in the wrong forum. This appeal arose from precisely that tension.
M/S Satyam Fashion, through its proprietor Ghanshyam Laxmanbhai Vaghasia (“Satyam Fashion”), held a registered design for an embroidered kurta with trousers and dupatta, registered with effect from 06 February 2025. Satyam Fashion sued Meesho Technologies Private Limited, the e-commerce platform operating as Meesho.com, along with several sellers listed on the platform (collectively “Meesho”), alleging that near-identical garments were being sold through Meesho’s marketplace in violation of its registered design. Satyam Fashion sought an interim injunction before the Commercial Court, 9th Additional District Judge, Surat, to restrain further sales pending trial. Meesho resisted the plea, arguing that the registered design lacked novelty and originality under Section 4 read with Section 2(d) of the Designs Act, 2000 (“Designs Act”), because an identical product listing on Meesho’s own platform carried a customer review dated 25 January 2025, predating Satyam Fashion’s registration application by nearly two weeks. On this basis, Meesho contended that the registration was liable to be cancelled under Section 19 of the Designs Act and raised this cancellation as a ground of defence under Section 22(3) of the Act. The Commercial Court, by order dated 12 September 2025, rejected Satyam Fashion’s application for interim injunction. Satyam Fashion appealed this rejection before the Gujarat High Court.
Issues
-
- Whether the Commercial Court could adjudicate Satyam Fashion’s interim injunction application once Meesho raised cancellation of the design registration as a defence under Section 22(3) of the Designs Act.
- Whether Section 22(4) of the Designs Act made transfer of the entire suit to the High Court mandatory in these circumstances, irrespective of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
- Whether the Commercial Court’s rejection of interim relief could stand despite this procedural bar.
Satyam Fashion’s Arguments
-
- Argued that under Section 22(3) and Section 22(4) of the Designs Act, once Meesho raised cancellation of registration as a defence, the suit ought to have been transferred to the High Court, and the Commercial Court had no jurisdiction to independently decide the interim injunction application on merits.
- Relied on the Commercial Court’s own order, which recorded Meesho’s cancellation petition pending before the Controller of Designs at Kolkata under Section 4 read with Section 9 of the Designs Act, yet proceeded to reject the injunction without transferring the suit.
- Sought that the rejection order be set aside and the matter be remitted with a direction to transfer the suit.
Meesho’s Arguments
-
- Contended that Satyam Fashion had approached the court with unclean hands, invoking the doctrine of suppression veri and suggestio falsi, by concealing prior publication of the design in India and abroad.
- Argued that the design lacked novelty and originality under Section 4 read with Section 2(d) of the Designs Act, since the same design had been disclosed to the public through Meesho’s own listing before the registration application date.
- Argued that under Section 22(1) of the Designs Act, piracy could only be alleged where a valid, subsisting registered design existed, and since the registration itself was liable to cancellation under Section 19(1)(b), no relief could follow.
- Sought dismissal of the suit and an award of costs.
Court’s Analysis
A Defence That Changes the Forum, Not Just the Outcome
The court noted that Meesho’s written statement did more than resist the injunction application on facts; it invoked Section 19 of the Designs Act to seek cancellation of Satyam Fashion’s registration as a ground of defence under Section 22(3). The court observed that this distinction is decisive under Section 22(4) Designs Act, because once a defendant avails cancellation as a defence in a suit for design infringement, the provision leaves the trial court no choice: the suit must transfer to the High Court for decision. The court further observed that the Commercial Court’s own order had recorded Meesho’s parallel cancellation petition before the Controller of Designs at Kolkata, yet proceeded to reject the injunction without engaging with this jurisdictional bar.
The Mold-Tek Precedent and the Ministerial Nature of Transfer
The court relied on the Supreme Court’s ruling in S.D. Containers Indore v. Mold-Tek Packaging Ltd. (2021) 3 SCC 289, which considered whether the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 displaced the transfer mechanism under Section 22(4) Designs Act. The court noted that the Commercial Courts Act contains no provision either permitting or prohibiting transfer of design suits to High Courts lacking ordinary original civil jurisdiction, and that the two statutory routes for testing a design’s validity, an application before the Controller and a defence of cancellation before a civil court, remain independent causes of action. The court reasoned that where a defendant chooses the latter route inside an infringement suit, transfer under Section 22(4) becomes a ministerial act, leaving no discretion to the trial court once the defence is raised.
No Occasion to Decide Interim Relief First
The court found that the Commercial Court had erred in adjudicating the interim injunction application at all once the cancellation defence was on record, since the statutory scheme required the suit, and everything tied to it, to move to the High Court before any substantive adjudication could occur. The court stated that sequence mattered: validity had to be tested in the forum designated by Section 22(4) before questions of infringement or interim protection could be reached. The court opined that permitting a Commercial Court to reject an injunction on the assumption that the registration might not survive scrutiny would effectively decide the cancellation question through the back door, a result the transfer mechanism was designed to prevent.
Prior Publication Through the Defendant’s Own Marketplace
The court also took note of Meesho’s factual plank, that the very listing complained of on its own marketplace carried a customer review dated 25 January 2025, predating Satyam Fashion’s registration application of 06 February 2025. The court did not render a final finding on novelty at this stage, since that question now stands committed to the High Court’s original jurisdiction, but it acknowledged that this timeline formed the foundation of the cancellation defence that triggered Section 22(4) in the first place.
Findings
In view of the observations and the arguments presented by both the parties, the Gujarat High Court held that:
-
- The Commercial Court’s order dated 12 September 2025, rejecting Satyam Fashion’s application for interim injunction, could not stand, since it failed to account for the mandatory transfer bar under Section 22(4) of the Designs Act.
- Section 22(4) of the Designs Act, 2000, operates as a ministerial provision: once a defendant raises cancellation of design registration as a defence in an infringement suit, the trial court has no discretion but to transfer the suit to the High Court.
- The suit pending before the Commercial Court, 9th Additional District Judge, Surat, was directed to be transferred to the Gujarat High Court within one week of receipt of the order.
- The appeal was allowed, with no order as to costs, and the connected civil application for stay was disposed of as not surviving.
Case Citation: M/S Satyam Fashion Through Ghanshyam Laxmanbhai Vaghasia v. Meesho Technologies Private Limited & Ors., C/AO/224/2025, High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad, decided on 16 June 2026. Available at https://indiankanoon.org/doc/103304762/
Authored by Gaurav Mishra, IP Attorney, BananaIP Counsels