TAHILIANI DESIGN PVT LTD Vs. RAJESH MASRANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this order, it is proposed to decide two applications, being IA No. 1154/2007 and IA No. 4200/2007. The first is an application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the plaintiff, inter alia, seeking an injunction order during the pendency of the present suit restraining the defendant from reproducing, printing, publishing and distributing, selling or offering for sale prints in any form whatsoever that are a colourable imitation or substantial reproduction of the plaintiff's fabric prints including the underlying drawings/sketches thereof. The second is an application under Order XXXIX Rule 4 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for vacation of the ex parte injunction order passed by this Court on 02.02.2007 in the above terms.

(2.) The plaintiff is a Private Limited Company incorporated on 27th August, 2002 engaged in business under the creative leadership of Mr. Tarun Tahiliani, who is a major presence in the fashion industry in India and enjoys a global reputation since the year 1994. The plaintiff claims to have four main product lines, viz. couture, diffusion, pret-a-porter and accessories. All the works that are the subject matter of the present suit are stated to be couture, which line, according to the plaintiff, consists of high-end garments, which are designed and manufactured, and consequently priced, for extremely limited production. It is stated that the said high- end garments are targeted at a very small, exclusive clientele, who would not be interested in mass-produced garments. It is also stated that it is integral to the nature of this line that not more than twenty (and usually fewer) copies are made of any single costume. The uniqueness and distinctiveness of each collection, of each outfit and of each garment is thus claimed to be the sine qua non of the plaintiff's couture line and any reproduction of its garments, or any of its distinctive features is alleged to destroy its value, causing incalculable damage to the plaintiff's reputation and posing a serious threat to the viability of its whole business model.

(3.) It is averred in the plaint that the uniqueness of the plaintiff's work, which is the life-blood of its business, is the result of several creative inputs which cumulatively add up to a specialised know-how that is unique in the plaintiff's particular business, creating for the plaintiff a distinctive and identifiable niche in the fashion world.