{"id":145685,"date":"2025-10-07T12:00:46","date_gmt":"2025-10-07T06:30:46","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/?p=145685"},"modified":"2025-10-07T12:00:46","modified_gmt":"2025-10-07T06:30:46","slug":"gaurav-gupta-trademark-copyright-design-infringement-case-india","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/gaurav-gupta-trademark-copyright-design-infringement-case-india\/","title":{"rendered":"Court Grants ex-parte Order in Favor of Designer Gaurav Gupta"},"content":{"rendered":"
Facts<\/h5>\n

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 \u201cGAURAV GUPTA\u201d, copyright violations, and piracy of registered designs.<\/p>\n

Plaintiff No. 2, Gaurav Gupta, is an internationally recognized fashion designer whose garments are marketed under his own name, \u201cGAURAV GUPTA,\u201d 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.<\/p>\n

In March 2024, the plaintiffs discovered that the defendant was operating a YouTube channel (\u201cDesigner Salem\u201d) and social media accounts (Instagram and Facebook) displaying and selling replicas and substantial imitations of the plaintiffs\u2019 garments. The defendant was also using the name \u201cGAURAV GUPTA\u201d in video titles and descriptions to attract consumers searching for the plaintiffs\u2019 products.<\/p>\n

Issues<\/h5>\n

The Court examined the following issues:<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. \n
      \n
    1. Whether the defendant\u2019s actions amounted to infringement of the plaintiffs\u2019 registered trademark \u201cGAURAV GUPTA\u201d.<\/li>\n
    2. Whether the defendant\u2019s manufacture and sale of garments constituted copyright infringement and design piracy under the Copyright Act, 1957 and Designs Act, 2000.<\/li>\n
    3. Whether the plaintiffs were entitled to an ex parte summary judgment under Order VIII Rule 10 read with Order XIII-A CPC.<\/li>\n
    4. Whether the plaintiffs were entitled to damages and costs.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
      Plaintiffs\u2019 Arguments<\/h5>\n

      The plaintiffs contended that the defendant\u2019s unauthorized use of the registered trademark \u201cGAURAV GUPTA\u201d 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\u2019s deliberate actions misled consumers and unfairly exploited the substantial goodwill and reputation built by them over the years.<\/p>\n

      Since the defendant failed to file any written statement or affidavit despite service of summons by email and WhatsApp, all the plaintiffs\u2019 claims and documents stood admitted and unrebutted, justifying a summary judgment in their favor.<\/p>\n

      Court\u2019s Analysis<\/h5>\n

      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.
      \nThe Court also noted that summary judgment under Order XIII-A CPC is warranted when the defendant has no real prospect of defending the claim.
      \nUpon examining the evidence and comparison tables of the plaintiffs\u2019 original designs versus the defendant\u2019s garments, the Court found the replicas to be deceptively identical, differing only in color. The defendant\u2019s conduct was found to be willful infringement and an attempt to ride upon the plaintiffs\u2019 goodwill.<\/p>\n

      Further, the Court held that punitive damages are justified when a defendant, despite being served, fails to appear, implying deliberate infringement.<\/p>\n

      Order<\/h5>\n

      The Court granted a summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, and issued a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendant from:<\/p>\n