The Rahul Mishra: From NID to Global Fashion Icon
Rahul Mishra, is synonymous with carving out a respectable space as the first Indian designer to be invited to showcase at the Haute Couture Week in Paris. Winning the International Woolmark Prize in 2014, he became the first Indian designer to receive this prestigious award.
A graduate of the National Institute of Design, he made his debut in 2006 by showcasing his cotton handloom textiles from the Kerala collection at Lakme Fashion Week. With such beautiful beginnings, he went on to showcase his work at multiple fashion weeks. What stood out to the world was the finesse with which he incorporated traditional Indian textiles and handmade craftsmanship into his work.
It goes without saying that the prestige his label has earned is the result of years of investment in creativity, craftsmanship, and dedication. Such a build-up deserves its due protection, which was challenged in the Rahul Mishra v. John Doe case.
The Counterfeit Crisis: Design & Copyright Infringement, Domain Take Down and John Doe Order
The case unfolds with the first layer being the infringing website published and operating online under the name “www.rahudress.com,”, closely mimicking the authentic domain name of Rahul Mishra’s official website, “www.rahulmishra.in,” creating a deceptive similarity in the eyes of buyers, potentially misleading them into purchasing counterfeit products. The infringing website, illicitly used elements from Rahul Mishra’s collections, including photographs of models wearing his designs on the runway.
The motive behind creating and running this website was to sell counterfeit, replicated versions of these designs at significantly lower prices, leading to both design and copyright infringement. Design infringement in cases of apparel occurs when there is an unauthorized replication of the designer’s unique garment shapes, patterns, and configurations, which are protected under intellectual property laws.
Understanding Design and Copyright Infringement in Fashion
Copyright infringement occurs when elements of creativity, such as the designs themselves as fashion illustrations or design drawings, runway photographs, and the like, are used without the permission of the owner of such intellectual property.
As a proponent of ‘mindful luxury,’ the pricing of Rahul Mishra’s designs symbolizes exclusivity and craftsmanship. Such exclusivity, when challenged by counterfeit operations, causes significant damage to a brand’s image, eroding its perceived value and commercial viability.
Another essential component of this case was it being a John Doe Order. This refers to a legal order issued against a party whose identity is unknown. Such orders are typically granted when the identities of the infringing parties cannot be determined, making it impossible to ascertain who they are.
An injunction was sought to restrain the defendant (John Doe, the unidentified infringing party) from exploiting the intellectual property of the plaintiff (Rahul Mishra’s label). The plaintiff argued that the defendant falsely used their trademark and copyrighted material to sell counterfeit goods at significantly lower prices, causing damage to the brand and its reputation. It was highlighted that the plaintiff is the registered proprietor of the trademark “RAHUL MISHRA” under various classes and operates the official website, “www.rahulmishra.in.” Rahul Mishra IP case
The plaintiff emphasized that the defendant had unlawfully used official photographs of models showcasing their collection during fashion shows, originally published on the plaintiff’s website, and displayed them on their counterfeit domain. This act, they contended, constituted copyright infringement under Section 2(c) of the Copyright Act, 1957, as the photographs and the exclusive designs featured in them are original artistic works. The plaintiff further asserted that they hold exclusive rights to these creations under Section 14 of the Copyright Act, 1957.
Additionally, the plaintiff argued that their exclusive designs are protected under Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act, 1957, as they include unique shapes, configurations, and surface patterns. They also clarified that the exclusivity of Rahul Mishra’s designs aligns with the definitions under Section 15(2), pointing out that their designs were not reproduced more than 50 times, else they would have lost protection under the legislation. By limiting production to fewer than 50 units per design, they maintained their protection under copyright law.
To further substantiate their claims, they submitted photographs from the defendant’s website for comparison, highlighting the blatant copying of every aspect of the plaintiff’s style, look, and aesthetic, eliminating any perceivable distinction between the two. They further argued that such deliberate replication clearly demonstrates an intention to cause unfair loss to the plaintiff, creating a high risk of confusion among the public and leading to trademark infringement, copyright infringement, design piracy, passing off, and unfair competition.
John Doe Order: Legal Insights into the Verdict
The court favored the plaintiff’s stance and held that they had successfully established a clear prima facie case, warranting the granting of an ex-parte ad interim injunction, also referred to as a dynamic injunction. Additionally, the court ordered the blocking of the defendant’s ISP (Internet Service Provider) and the permanent locking and suspension of the domain “www.rahudress.com.”
In an effort to reduce the piracy and its menace, the media and film industry in India have relied on John Doe orders for numerous movies against internet service providers (ISPs), illegal unlicensed distributors and capable operators. While in some instances the overreaching effect of such orders has been criticized it continues to play an important role in protecting the rights of IP holders.
Enforcement of John Doe Order: Indian Perspective
It must be noted that it is imperative for anyone seeking a John Doe order to demonstrate that the plaintiff has an arguable case against the defendant. The order must clearly state what the defendant must and must not do. It must be noted that even though the John Doe order is made against a part anonymous, they must still be identifiable and the order will be effective against the person who, when made aware of the terms of the order, will understand that it applied to him.
In the case of Balaji Motion Pictures & Anr versus Bharat Sanchar Nigam & ors. The plaintiffs were specifically directed to serve a public notice stating the details of the case and the order passed by the court against the defendants, thereby meeting the requirement of “sufficient service” allowing the defendants a four day period to apply against the injunction.
In the case of Eros International and Anr versus BSNL & Ors, the Bombay High Court extended some guidelines in the matters of John Doe Orders.
As per the Hon’ble High Court, the IP right holders were required to verify and authenticate the allegedly illicit links prior to requesting their blocking, followed by a secondary verification by advocates and general counsels. With respect to the enforcement of Order 39, Rule 1 of the CPC, the plaintiff must submit all the material before the High Court as an affidavit on oath.
Lastly, the Courts while issuing the order, are advised to review the list themselves or delegate a neutral third party to verify the authenticity of the same. The ISP’s shall thereby display a message on the blocked webpage, mentioning the details of the case, reason for blocking, the address of the copyright holder and a statement of that any aggrieved person, including the viewers, may approach the court with at least 48 hours’ notice to the advocates of the Plaintiff.
The judgement also narrowed the validity of the block to 21 days, thereafter which the plaintiff would be required to approach the court to obtain an for the extension of the ban.
Rahul Mishra’s landmark victory highlights the critical need for robust intellectual property protection in the fashion industry. As digital commerce expands, safeguarding creativity becomes essential to preserving brand integrity and exclusivity. This case sets a precedent for designers, demonstrating the importance of proactive measures like John Doe orders to combat counterfeiting. It also emphasizes the responsibility of ensuring fairness and transparency in enforcement. More than just a legal win, this moment underscores that authenticity and artistry are the cornerstones of mindful luxury, essential for the fashion industry’s future.
Comments