Delhi High Court | Designer Arjan Dugal’s Clothing Label Shielded by Ex-Parte Injunction Against Infringement
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Delhi Single Bench of Justice Tejas Karia has granted interim relief to designer Arjan Dugal in a commercial suit against a former employee over alleged infringement of trade dress, original artistic work, and misappropriation of confidential client data. The Court issued summons in the main suit and, pending adjudication, restrained the defendants—operating under the menswear label “So.Man”—from manufacturing, marketing, or selling garments whose embroidery, silhouettes, accents, linings, colour scheme, and overall look and feel are identical or deceptively similar to the plaintiffs’ designs. The order, passed under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, also directed removal of infringing content from digital platforms and prohibited use of the plaintiffs’ proprietary database.
The suit was instituted by Mr. Arjan Dugal and his associated limited liability partnership, both engaged in the business of creating bespoke and ready-to-wear menswear garments under the designer label “Arjan Dugal.” Established in 2014, the label has built significant recognition within the Indian fashion industry for its distinctive artistic works, innovative trade dress, and creative design methodologies. Over time, the brand has invested in intellectual property comprising trademarks, domain names, copyrights, confidential databases, and trade secrets.
The plaintiffs alleged that defendant no. 1, Mr. Shubham Gandhi, had been employed with them from April 2019 to June 2024 as a Merchandiser and Fashion Consultant at their flagship store in New Delhi. During this period, he had access to confidential material, including original copyrights, garment construction methodologies, design techniques, and sensitive client databases consisting of approximately 6,000 clients. Defendant no. 2, his wife, had worked between 2021 and 2024 with the plaintiffs’ affiliated women’s wear label, “Simar Dugal,” and was likewise privy to proprietary artistic works and creative processes.
Following the cessation of employment, the defendants launched a competing menswear label named “So.Man.” The plaintiffs contended that the defendants’ garments unlawfully incorporated the plaintiffs’ distinctive elements, such as tonal embroidery, unique neckline cuts, in-built pocket squares, and upturned cuffs with printed or embroidered detailing. According to the plaintiffs, these design features were developed after years of research and refinement and had become integral to the brand’s identity.
The defendants allegedly promoted and marketed their garments under the names “Stripe Aari Loop Button Kurta,” “Dori Front Open Kurta,” and “The Shacket,” among others. These were claimed to be substantially similar to the plaintiffs’ collections “Vertical Aari,” “Vertical Dori,” and “The Shacket.” Comparative evidence was placed on record demonstrating similarities in embroidery placement, garment silhouettes, fabric selection, collars, and overall trade dress.
It was further alleged that the defendants misappropriated the plaintiffs’ client database by soliciting clients directly through WhatsApp communications, Instagram and Facebook promotions, and third-party websites. The plaintiffs stated that the defendants had blocked them from accessing the “So.Man” Instagram page to conceal promotional content showcasing infringing garments. The plaintiffs claimed that such acts amounted not only to copyright infringement but also to breach of confidence, misappropriation of trade secrets, unfair competition, and unjust enrichment.
The plaintiffs sought urgent reliefs under the Copyright Act, 1957, the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, and Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC. The reliefs prayed for included injunctions restraining the defendants from dealing in infringing garments, protection of the proprietary client database, rendition of accounts, damages, and delivery up of infringing goods. Additional applications sought exemption from pre-institution mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, exemption from advance service of notice to the defendants, filing of certain documents in sealed cover, and appointment of a Local Commissioner.
Justice Tejas Karia, after considering the pleadings, documentary evidence, and submissions of the plaintiffs, recorded that a prima facie case existed in favour of the plaintiffs. The Court stated: “Having considered the submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for the Plaintiffs, the pleadings and the documents on record, a prima facie case has been made out on behalf of the Plaintiffs for grant of an ex-parte ad-interim injunction. Balance of convenience is in favour of the Plaintiffs and against the Defendants. Irreparable injury would be caused to the Plaintiffs if an ex-parte ad-interim injunction is not granted.”
The Court noted that the plaintiffs’ brand had, since its inception in 2014, developed a distinctive reputation for its artistic works and trade dress. As recorded: “The Plaintiffs’ designer label has, over time, established and built a strong reputation around its signature aesthetic—particularly characterised by tone-on-tone embroidery, a distinctive neckline cut, a built-in pocket square and most notably, upturned cuffs featuring either a printed or embroidered detail.”
On examining the comparative analysis between the plaintiffs’ collections and the defendants’ garments, the Court observed that the similarities extended beyond general design trends and instead reflected substantial reproduction of distinctive artistic features. The order recorded that garments marketed under the defendants’ label replicated embroidery placement, construction details, silhouettes, and other distinctive elements integral to the plaintiffs’ original works.
The Court further observed that the pricing strategy of the defendants, whereby similar-looking garments were sold at lower prices, had the effect of undercutting the plaintiffs’ market presence while misappropriating their goodwill. The order stated that such acts were likely to mislead consumers and result in confusion regarding the origin of goods.
The Court directed: “The Defendants, their partners, directors, group companies or sister concerns, associates, divisions, licensees, franchisees, agents, distributors and dealers are restrained from manufacturing, marketing, distributing, selling, using, advertising, marketing, offering for sale, or in any manner dealing in any garment or product, including but not limited to the Defendants’ collection ‘Stripe Aari Loop Button Kurta’, and its variations therein under the label/brand ‘So.Man’ or any other label that they may establish thereafter, that infringe the Copyrights of the Plaintiffs.”
The Court passed similar injunctions against the defendants’ collections marketed as “Dori Front Open Kurta” and “The Shacket,” holding that these too were deceptively similar to the plaintiffs’ artistic works. It further restrained the defendants from dealing in any garment bearing the plaintiffs’ trade dress, including embroidery work, silhouettes, accents, linings, colour schemes, and arrangement of motifs.
“The Defendants, their partners, directors, group companies or sister concerns, associates, divisions, licensees, franchisees, agents, distributors and dealers are restrained from using, accessing, reproducing, soliciting, or misappropriating the Plaintiffs’ proprietary Client Database or Customer Data, and/or from contacting, soliciting, or poaching the Plaintiffs’ clients.”
The Court also directed the defendants to cease all promotions and remove infringing content from websites, social media platforms including Instagram, Facebook, Pinterest, and YouTube, as well as their official website.
To ensure compliance, the Court appointed a Local Commissioner with authority to visit the defendants’ premises, inspect and seize infringing garments, and record details of accounts and client data. The Commissioner was also empowered to photograph proceedings, prepare inventories, and secure cooperation of the local police if required. The Commission was fixed for execution on 4 September 2025, with a report to be filed within two weeks.
Summons were issued in the main suit, with directions to the defendants to file written statements within 30 days of service, accompanied by affidavits of admission or denial of documents. The matter was listed for further hearing on 17 December 2025.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. Chander M. Lall, Mr. Devanshu Khanna, Ms. Harsshita Pothiraj, Mr. Partheshwar Singh and Ms. Annanya Mehen, Advocates.
Case Title: Mr. Arjan Dugal & Anr. v. Mr. Shubham Gandhi & Anr.
Case Number: CS (COMM) 918/2025
Bench: Justice Tejas Karia
