Anshuman Upadhyay, Mr. Naseem, Ms. Shreyas Mehrotra Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocates v. FASHNEAR TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED ORS. Through

restraining the defendants from infringing the copyright of the plaintiff, passing off their products as that of the plaintiff, along with other ancillary reliefs. PLEADINGS IN THE PLAINT

2. The plaintiff, Abhi Traders, is engaged in the business of clothing for women and men since December, 2021. The plaintiff itself designs and manufactures the said goods and sells them under its trademark ‘Ibrana/ ’.

3. The plaintiff is the owner of proprietary rights in various photographs used for advertising and promotion of the plaintiff’s products i.e. designer ethnic clothing for females. The said photographs were taken by the plaintiff and designed by professional designers for the sake of consideration in Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DHARMENDER SINGH Signing Date:05.05.2025 13:41:30 CS(COMM) 180/2024 favour of the plaintiff without any agreement to contradictory. Hence, under Section 17(b) of the Copyright Act, 1957, the plaintiff is the first owner of copyrights on the original and artistic designs of its products, and the photographs/pictures showing dresses designed for/by the plaintiff, photographed from different angles as to showcase the originally created designs of women’s wear manufactured by the plaintiff.

4. The plaintiff’s products bearing the mark ‘Ibrana’ are advertised and promoted through photographs over which the plaintiff’s copyright subsists. The sales turnover associated with the said copyrighted photographs for the financial year 2022-2023 was to the tune of Rs. 2,42,52,909/-. During the period April, 2021 to December, 2022, the sales of the plaintiff’s products associated with the plaintiff’s copyright are given in paragraph 12(iv) of the plaint. The plaintiff’s promotional expenses to run advertisements of its products on the online retail platform of the defendant no.1 during the period December 2021 - February 2024 are given in paragraph 12(vi) of the plaint.

5. On the platform of the defendant no.1, the plaintiff has an average rating of 4.0 with over 30,250 ratings and 6060 reviews by the consumers. The plaintiff’s products are one of the most sought after products in the relevant category on various ecommerce platforms including that of defendant no. 1 and the same is evident from the huge numbers of views, clicks, monthly orders, etc. that the plaintiff generates for its products on the online retail platform of the defendant no. 1, as tabulated in paragraph 12(v) of the plaint.

6. Defendant no. 1, Fashnear Technologies Private Limited, runs one of the upcoming e-commerce platforms by the name ‘Meesho’ in India.

7. In the month of January, 2024, the plaintiff came across the third Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DHARMENDER SINGH Signing Date:05.05.2025 13:41:30 CS(COMM) 180/2024 party sellers impleaded as defendants no. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9, who, without any association or authorisation from the plaintiff, use the plaintiff’s copyrighted pictures and photographs and sell their own counterfeit goods thereunder on the online platform owned, run, managed and administered by the defendant no. 1. The defendant no.10/ Ashok Kumar(s) are unknown entities who are unlawfully using the plaintiff’s products’ images over which the copyright of the plaintiff subsists.

8. On gaining knowledge of the aforesaid unlawful activities, plaintiff made representations before the defendant no.1 on 30th January, 2024 and 23rd February, 2024. However, the defendant no.1 failed to disclose the details of the defendants no. 2-9.

9. Accordingly, the plaintiff filed the present suit on 27th February, 2024 seeking to restrain the defendants from carrying on their infringing activities. PROCEEDINGS IN THE SUIT

10. On 29th February, 2024, this Court granted an ad interim injunction in favour of the plaintiff restraining the defendants no.2-9 from showcasing their products on the defendant no.1’s platform, and prohibited them from reproducing, copying, publishing, or imitating any designs of the plaintiff’s clothing. This Court also prohibited the defendants no.2-9 from reproducing any images related to the plaintiff's products, including the impugned photographs. In the same injunction order, the defendant no.1 was directed to disclose all available details of the defendants no. 2-9 including the address, mobile numbers, email addresses, total sales made by them, GST details etc., since the time listings have been put up.

11. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, the defendant no.1 has disclosed the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DHARMENDER SINGH Signing Date:05.05.2025 13:41:30 CS(COMM) 180/2024 particulars of the defendants no. 2-9 to the counsel for the plaintiff.

12. Vide order dated 3rd July, 2024, the defendant no.1’s written statement was taken on record subject to payment of costs.

13. Vide order dated 29th July, 2024, the Joint Registrar noted that the defendants no. 2, 3, 4, 7, 8 and 9 were served on 3rd May, 2024, the defendant no. 6 was served through email on 1st May, 2024 and the defendant no.5 was served on 22nd March, 2024. Despite this, the defendants no. 2-9 did not enter appearance and no written statement(s) were filed on behalf of the defendants no. 2-9.

14. On 1st August, 2024, the defendant no.5 was proceeded against ex- parte.

15. The present suit has already been decreed qua the defendant no.1 via order dated 19th March, 2025 on the basis of an undertaking given by the defendant no.1 in its written statement. In the same order, it was noted that the defendants no. 2-9 have not filed their written statement(s) and the defendants no. 2-4 and 6-9 were proceeded against ex-parte.

16. The plaintiff now seeks a decree against the defendants no. 2-9 in terms of Order VIII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter, ‘CPC’). ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

17. I have heard the submissions of Mr. Anshuman Upadhyay, learned counsel for the plaintiff and also perused the material on record.

18. The plaint has been duly verified and is also supported by the affidavit of the plaintiff. In view of the fact that no written statement has been filed on behalf of the defendants no. 2-9, all the averments made in the plaint have to be taken to be admitted. Further, since no affidavit of Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DHARMENDER SINGH Signing Date:05.05.2025 13:41:30 CS(COMM) 180/2024 admission/denial has been filed on behalf of the defendants no. 2-9 in respect of the documents filed with the plaint, in terms of Rule 3 of the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules 2018, the same are deemed to have been admitted. Therefore, in my opinion this suit does not merit trial and the suit is capable of being decreed in terms of Order VIII Rule 10 of CPC.

19. From the averments made in the plaint and the evidence on record, the plaintiff has been able to prove that due to its long and continuous use, the plaintiff has acquired copyright in photographs used for advertising and promotion of the plaintiff’s products.

20. The plaintiff has placed on record the images used by the defendants no. 2-9 to promote its products to show that the defendants no. 2-9 are indulging in infringement and passing off of the plaintiff’s copyrighted photographs. The similarities between plaintiff’s copyrighted photographs and the defendants no. 2-9’s impugned listings are set out below: Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DHARMENDER SINGH Signing Date:05.05.2025 13:41:30 CS(COMM) 180/2024 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DHARMENDER SINGH Signing Date:05.05.2025 13:41:30 CS(COMM) 180/2024 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DHARMENDER SINGH Signing Date:05.05.2025 13:41:30 CS(COMM) 180/2024 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DHARMENDER SINGH Signing Date:05.05.2025 13:41:30 CS(COMM) 180/2024

21. On a perusal of the defendants no. 2-9’s listings, it is evident that the photographs used are identical to the plaintiff’s copyrighted photographs and the defendants no. 2-9 have substantially reproduced the plaintiff’s copyrighted photographs.

22. Based on the discussion above, a clear case of infringement of copyright is made out. The defendants no. 2-9 have taken unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of the plaintiff’s copyrighted works and has also deceived the unwary consumers of its association with the plaintiff by dishonestly adopting the plaintiff’s copyrighted works without any plausible explanation. Therefore, the plaintiff has established a case of passing off as well.

23. At this stage, it may be relevant to note that the defendants no. 2-9 did not appear before the Court, despite service of summons. Further, no communication on behalf of the defendants no. 2-9 have been placed on Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DHARMENDER SINGH Signing Date:05.05.2025 13:41:30 CS(COMM) 180/2024 record in respect of the allegations of the plaintiff in this suit.

24. Since the defendants no. 2-9 have failed to take any requisite steps to contest the present suit, despite having suffered an ad interim injunction order, it is evident that they have no defence to put forth on merits. RELIEF

25. In view of the foregoing analysis, a decree of permanent injunction is passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants no. 2-9 in terms of prayer clauses 45(A) and 45(B) of the plaint.

26. Counsel for the plaintiff does not press for the remaining reliefs qua defendants no. 2-9.

27. Further, counsel for the plaintiff does not press for any reliefs qua defendant no.10.

28. Let the decree sheet be drawn up.

29. All pending applications stand disposed of. APRIL 28, 2025 AMIT BANSAL, J Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DHARMENDER SINGH Signing Date:05.05.2025 13:41:30 CS(COMM) 180/2024