Summary
The Delhi High Court granted a permanent injunction in favor of designer Gaurav Gupta, restraining the defendant from infringing the “GAURAV GUPTA” trademark and copying his original apparel designs. The Court found that the defendant had been selling counterfeit replicas online and on social media, misleading customers into believing they were authentic Gaurav Gupta creations. The Court also awarded ₹5,00,000 in damages and costs.
Facts
The plaintiffs, M/s Reflect Sculpt Private Ltd. and its principal designer Mr. Gaurav Gupta, filed a suit seeking a permanent injunction against the defendant, Abdus Salam Khan, for infringement of their registered trademark “GAURAV GUPTA”, copyright violations, and piracy of registered designs.
Plaintiff No. 2, Gaurav Gupta, is an internationally recognized fashion designer whose garments are marketed under his own name, “GAURAV GUPTA,” since 2006. The plaintiffs own multiple trademark registrations in Classes 6, 14, 18, 19, 20, 25, 35, and 41, and claim copyright over the original sketches, designs, and artistic garments.
In March 2024, the plaintiffs discovered that the defendant was operating a YouTube channel (“Designer Salem”) and social media accounts (Instagram and Facebook) displaying and selling replicas and substantial imitations of the plaintiffs’ garments. The defendant was also using the name “GAURAV GUPTA” in video titles and descriptions to attract consumers searching for the plaintiffs’ products.
Issues
The Court examined the following issues:
-
- Whether the defendant’s actions amounted to infringement of the plaintiffs’ registered trademark “GAURAV GUPTA”.
- Whether the defendant’s manufacture and sale of garments constituted copyright infringement and design piracy under the Copyright Act, 1957 and Designs Act, 2000.
- Whether the plaintiffs were entitled to an ex parte summary judgment under Order VIII Rule 10 read with Order XIII-A CPC.
- Whether the plaintiffs were entitled to damages and costs.
Plaintiffs’ Arguments
The plaintiffs contended that the defendant’s unauthorized use of the registered trademark “GAURAV GUPTA” in the course of trade amounted to clear infringement under Sections 29(1) and 29(9) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. They argued that the defendant had copied their original artistic sketches and garment designs, thereby infringing their copyright and registered designs, while also passing off his imitations as genuine Gaurav Gupta creations. The plaintiffs emphasized that the defendant’s deliberate actions misled consumers and unfairly exploited the substantial goodwill and reputation built by them over the years.
Since the defendant failed to file any written statement or affidavit despite service of summons by email and WhatsApp, all the plaintiffs’ claims and documents stood admitted and unrebutted, justifying a summary judgment in their favor.
Court’s Analysis
The Court observed that the plaint was duly verified and supported by affidavits, while the defendant failed to file a written statement despite being served. It held that when a defendant defaults, directing ex parte evidence is unnecessary and the court may decide the matter summarily.
The Court also noted that summary judgment under Order XIII-A CPC is warranted when the defendant has no real prospect of defending the claim.
Upon examining the evidence and comparison tables of the plaintiffs’ original designs versus the defendant’s garments, the Court found the replicas to be deceptively identical, differing only in color. The defendant’s conduct was found to be willful infringement and an attempt to ride upon the plaintiffs’ goodwill.
Further, the Court held that punitive damages are justified when a defendant, despite being served, fails to appear, implying deliberate infringement.
Order
The Court granted a summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, and issued a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendant from:
-
- Using the trademark “GAURAV GUPTA” or any deceptively similar mark;
- Infringing the plaintiffs’ copyright and registered designs;
- Manufacturing, selling, or advertising counterfeit or imitation garments.
The Court also awarded INR 5,00,000/- as damages and costs to the plaintiffs, and disposed of the suit.
Citation:
M/S Reflect Sculpt Private Ltd. & Anr vs Abdus Salam Khan, High Court of Delhi, CS(COMM) 278/2024 & I.A. 4468/2025, on 19th September, 2025. Available at: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/131593592/
Authored by Ms. Ashwini Arun