Case Name: Mr. Arjan Dugal & Anr. v. Mr. Shubham Gandhi & Anr.
Citation: CS (COMM) 918/2025; 2025
Court: Delhi High Court
Date of Judgment: 28 October 2025
Coram / Judges: Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla (Appellate Bench), with previous ex-parte orders issued by Justice Tejas Karia.
ABSTRACT
This case comment review the order of the Delhi High Court in Arjan Dugal & Anr. V. Mr. Shubham Gandhi & Anr., where the plaintiff a luxury menswear designer was granted an ex-parte protection, against their former employee who copied protected designs, the trade dress of plaintiff and has stolen the plaintiff’s confidential client database, to set up rival label. This comment would analyze the judgement by bringing in juxtaposition India’s legislative vacuum in the protection of trade secrets in conjunction to 22nd Law Commission’s 289th Report and the draft Bill of Protection of Trade Secrets Bill 2024 as an untimely but needed legislative protection, however, equitable gap-filling is only not good enough to bridge the lack of the legislation and a binding legal precedent is required.
INTRODUCTION
Arjan Dugal v. Shubham Gandhi marks a pivotal point in Indian IP law by scrutinising the safeguards for fashion designers against erstwhile employees who exploit privileged access to design methodologies and client lists. Creative industries have a unique vulnerability: the trusted insider, who is entrusted with intellectual capital of a brand becomes its most immediate infringer. This case crystallizes that threat. It reveals a more fundamental failure of legislation, beyond the facts of the moment. Without a specific trade secrets statute, Indian courts have had to improvise in the area of equity, rather than drawing on codified rights, such that creative enterprise is structurally under protected.
FACTS
The lawsuit has been filed by Mr. Arjan Dugal along with his limited liability partnership which is the proprietor of bespoke and ready-to-wear menswear label ‘Arjan Dugal’, founded in 2014. The label gained significant traction in the Indian fashion space by virtue of original artistic works, design methodologies and unique trade dress.
The plaintiffs stated that Defendant No. 1, Mr. Shubham Gandhi, worked with them as a Merchandiser and Fashion Consultant from April 2019 to June 2024 at their New Delhi flagship outlet. During this period, he was privy to original artistic works protected by copyright, construction methods of garments, design strategies, and the secret client database of approx. 6,000 customers. The wife of Defendant No. 1, Defendant No. 2, had been working with the plaintiffs’ allied womenswear label ‘Simar Dugal’ from 2021 to 2024 and had had access to its proprietary creative works and artistic methods.
After leaving the services of the plaintiffs, the defendants introduced their rival menswear label ‘So. Man’. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants’ apparel mimicked the unique tonal embroidery, cuts on necklines, built-in pocket squares, and embroidered upturned cuffs. Certain collections of the defendants – the ‘Stripe Aari Loop Button Kurta’, ‘Dori Front Open Kurta’ and ‘The Shacket’ – were alleged to be copies of the plaintiffs’ ‘Vertical Aari’, ‘Vertical Dori’ and ‘The Shacket’ respectively.
Further, the defendants were accused of the unauthorised use of the client database, approaching the plaintiffs’ customers through WhatsApp, Instagram, Facebook and external sites, and intentionally blocking the plaintiffs from viewing their Instagram account ‘So. Man’.
ISSUES
- Whether the defendants’ garments infringed the plaintiffs’ copyright in original artistic works under the Copyright Act, 1957.
- Whether the defendants misappropriated confidential client data and trade secrets amounting to breach of confidence and unfair competition.
- Whether the overall get-up and trade dress of the defendants’ label constituted passing off.
- Whether a prima facie case warranting an ex-parte ad-interim injunction was made out.
REASONING
Justice Tejas Karia had gone through the pleadings, documentary evidence as also had done comparative analysis of apparels presented by both sides. Hon’ble Court was convinced that likeness between collections could not be considered as mere coincidental but had evinced an uncanny likeness involving reproduction of features of distinctive Artistic work; the positioning of embriodery (work), placement and configuration of stitching/construction, silohuette of garment and the overall structural layout etc. Were an integral part of plaintiffs works. The Hon’ble Court was convinced that, at lower price value the defendant also started selling a look alike garment which not only has been usurping the clientele and the marketing space but, in effect, had been cheating consumers into believing that the goods originates from the producers of originals in as much as the same carry substantial similarities in visual attributes.
The Hon’ble Court applied the universally used and commonly applied trinity of tests of ex parte injunction: viz, Prima facie, balance of convenience and irreparable loss.
As observed in the order, the Court had satisfied all the above parameters: had come across with an excellent Prima facie case on the one hand, Balance of convenience would tilt heavily in favour of plaintiffs, and Irreparable damage will be caused to plaintiffs if the ex parte injunction was not granted.
CRITIQUE
Arjan Dugal v. Shubham Gandhi exposes a critical structural gap in Indian IP law: the complete absence of a dedicated trade secrets statute. Indian courts currently protect confidential business information through a patchwork of contract law, the equitable doctrine of breach of confidence, and general tort principles without any codified statutory right. Parties consequently lack definitional clarity, procedural certainty, and predictable remedies.
Recognising this vacuum, the 22nd Law Commission submitted its 289th Report on “Trade Secrets and Economic Espionage” in March 2024, alongside the draft Protection of Trade Secrets Bill, 2024. Three provisions would have materially altered this case. First, the Bill’s TRIPS-aligned statutory definition would have immediately established the plaintiffs’ 6,000-client database as a protectable trade secret, eliminating reliance on judicial inference. Second, its misappropriation standard covering disclosure by persons who knew or ought to have known the information was obtained unlawfully and directly captures the defendants’ WhatsApp and social media solicitation. Third, the employee carve-out for skills acquired during normal professional practice would have legislatively predetermined the hardest boundary in this dispute: separating lawful fashion expertise from unlawful appropriation of proprietary client data.
The resort to a Local Commissioner, equitable injunctions, and platform-specific takedowns illustrates precisely the ad hoc burden courts bear filling legislative gaps. Until Parliament acts, creative industries remain structurally under protected.
CONCLUSION
This decision does reinforce that designers will likely be strongly defended from insider theft by Indian courts, but the long-term solution would be to have lawmakers implement protective measures. It is still essential to have India pass a Protection of Trade Secrets Bill 2024 which will codify what the judiciary has improvise with the existing IP regime for these rights to remain concrete and reliably available to most of the designers’ IP assets.
REFERENCES
Mr. Arjan Dugal & Anr. v. Mr. Shubham Gandhi & Anr., CS (COMM) 918/2025, High Court of Delhi (Justice Tejas Karia), 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1083.
Law Commission of India, Report No. 289 — Trade Secrets and Economic Espionage (March 5, 2024), 22nd Law Commission (Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi, Chairperson).
Protection of Trade Secrets Bill, 2024 (Draft appended to Law Commission Report No. 289).
Copyright Act, 1957 (India).
Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), Article 39, WTO, 1994.
Indian Contract Act, 1872 (India).
Mr. Arjan Dugal & Anr. v. Mr. Shubham Gandhi & Anr.
Khushi Jain
Asian Law College
Case Name: Mr. Arjan Dugal & Anr. v. Mr. Shubham Gandhi & Anr.
Citation: CS (COMM) 918/2025; 2025
Court: Delhi High Court
Date of Judgment: 28 October 2025
Coram / Judges: Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla (Appellate Bench), with previous ex-parte orders issued by Justice Tejas Karia.
ABSTRACT
This case comment review the order of the Delhi High Court in Arjan Dugal & Anr. V. Mr. Shubham Gandhi & Anr., where the plaintiff a luxury menswear designer was granted an ex-parte protection, against their former employee who copied protected designs, the trade dress of plaintiff and has stolen the plaintiff’s confidential client database, to set up rival label. This comment would analyze the judgement by bringing in juxtaposition India’s legislative vacuum in the protection of trade secrets in conjunction to 22nd Law Commission’s 289th Report and the draft Bill of Protection of Trade Secrets Bill 2024 as an untimely but needed legislative protection, however, equitable gap-filling is only not good enough to bridge the lack of the legislation and a binding legal precedent is required.
INTRODUCTION
Arjan Dugal v. Shubham Gandhi marks a pivotal point in Indian IP law by scrutinising the safeguards for fashion designers against erstwhile employees who exploit privileged access to design methodologies and client lists. Creative industries have a unique vulnerability: the trusted insider, who is entrusted with intellectual capital of a brand becomes its most immediate infringer. This case crystallizes that threat. It reveals a more fundamental failure of legislation, beyond the facts of the moment. Without a specific trade secrets statute, Indian courts have had to improvise in the area of equity, rather than drawing on codified rights, such that creative enterprise is structurally under protected.
FACTS
The lawsuit has been filed by Mr. Arjan Dugal along with his limited liability partnership which is the proprietor of bespoke and ready-to-wear menswear label ‘Arjan Dugal’, founded in 2014. The label gained significant traction in the Indian fashion space by virtue of original artistic works, design methodologies and unique trade dress.
The plaintiffs stated that Defendant No. 1, Mr. Shubham Gandhi, worked with them as a Merchandiser and Fashion Consultant from April 2019 to June 2024 at their New Delhi flagship outlet. During this period, he was privy to original artistic works protected by copyright, construction methods of garments, design strategies, and the secret client database of approx. 6,000 customers. The wife of Defendant No. 1, Defendant No. 2, had been working with the plaintiffs’ allied womenswear label ‘Simar Dugal’ from 2021 to 2024 and had had access to its proprietary creative works and artistic methods.
After leaving the services of the plaintiffs, the defendants introduced their rival menswear label ‘So. Man’. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants’ apparel mimicked the unique tonal embroidery, cuts on necklines, built-in pocket squares, and embroidered upturned cuffs. Certain collections of the defendants – the ‘Stripe Aari Loop Button Kurta’, ‘Dori Front Open Kurta’ and ‘The Shacket’ – were alleged to be copies of the plaintiffs’ ‘Vertical Aari’, ‘Vertical Dori’ and ‘The Shacket’ respectively.
Further, the defendants were accused of the unauthorised use of the client database, approaching the plaintiffs’ customers through WhatsApp, Instagram, Facebook and external sites, and intentionally blocking the plaintiffs from viewing their Instagram account ‘So. Man’.
ISSUES
REASONING
Justice Tejas Karia had gone through the pleadings, documentary evidence as also had done comparative analysis of apparels presented by both sides. Hon’ble Court was convinced that likeness between collections could not be considered as mere coincidental but had evinced an uncanny likeness involving reproduction of features of distinctive Artistic work; the positioning of embriodery (work), placement and configuration of stitching/construction, silohuette of garment and the overall structural layout etc. Were an integral part of plaintiffs works. The Hon’ble Court was convinced that, at lower price value the defendant also started selling a look alike garment which not only has been usurping the clientele and the marketing space but, in effect, had been cheating consumers into believing that the goods originates from the producers of originals in as much as the same carry substantial similarities in visual attributes.
The Hon’ble Court applied the universally used and commonly applied trinity of tests of ex parte injunction: viz, Prima facie, balance of convenience and irreparable loss.
As observed in the order, the Court had satisfied all the above parameters: had come across with an excellent Prima facie case on the one hand, Balance of convenience would tilt heavily in favour of plaintiffs, and Irreparable damage will be caused to plaintiffs if the ex parte injunction was not granted.
CRITIQUE
Arjan Dugal v. Shubham Gandhi exposes a critical structural gap in Indian IP law: the complete absence of a dedicated trade secrets statute. Indian courts currently protect confidential business information through a patchwork of contract law, the equitable doctrine of breach of confidence, and general tort principles without any codified statutory right. Parties consequently lack definitional clarity, procedural certainty, and predictable remedies.
Recognising this vacuum, the 22nd Law Commission submitted its 289th Report on “Trade Secrets and Economic Espionage” in March 2024, alongside the draft Protection of Trade Secrets Bill, 2024. Three provisions would have materially altered this case. First, the Bill’s TRIPS-aligned statutory definition would have immediately established the plaintiffs’ 6,000-client database as a protectable trade secret, eliminating reliance on judicial inference. Second, its misappropriation standard covering disclosure by persons who knew or ought to have known the information was obtained unlawfully and directly captures the defendants’ WhatsApp and social media solicitation. Third, the employee carve-out for skills acquired during normal professional practice would have legislatively predetermined the hardest boundary in this dispute: separating lawful fashion expertise from unlawful appropriation of proprietary client data.
The resort to a Local Commissioner, equitable injunctions, and platform-specific takedowns illustrates precisely the ad hoc burden courts bear filling legislative gaps. Until Parliament acts, creative industries remain structurally under protected.
CONCLUSION
This decision does reinforce that designers will likely be strongly defended from insider theft by Indian courts, but the long-term solution would be to have lawmakers implement protective measures. It is still essential to have India pass a Protection of Trade Secrets Bill 2024 which will codify what the judiciary has improvise with the existing IP regime for these rights to remain concrete and reliably available to most of the designers’ IP assets.
REFERENCES
Mr. Arjan Dugal & Anr. v. Mr. Shubham Gandhi & Anr., CS (COMM) 918/2025, High Court of Delhi (Justice Tejas Karia), 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1083.
Law Commission of India, Report No. 289 — Trade Secrets and Economic Espionage (March 5, 2024), 22nd Law Commission (Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi, Chairperson).
Protection of Trade Secrets Bill, 2024 (Draft appended to Law Commission Report No. 289).
Copyright Act, 1957 (India).
Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), Article 39, WTO, 1994.
Indian Contract Act, 1872 (India).
Share Us On Socials
Other Recent Blog Posts
THE POTATO PATENT BATTLE
CASE NAME: PepsiCo India Holdings Pvt. Ltd. v. Kavitha Kuruganti CITATION: C.A. (COMM.IPD-PV) 2/2022 & IAs 7898/2022 & 7900/2022, decided on 5 July 2023 COURT:
OWNING YOUR DIGITAL DOPPELGANGER
ABSTRACT Who owns your digital twin, and who protects it? Imagine a doppelganger of yourself or your machine, not in flesh and blood but in
FROM PITCH TO PIRACY
PROTECTING CREATIVE EXPRESSION CASE NAME: Zee Telefilms Ltd. v. Sundial Communications Pvt. Ltd. CITATION: 2003 (5) BOM CR 404; 2003 (3) MHLJ 695; 2003 (27)
PROTECTING THE BLUEPRINT
SILICON’S SILENT BATTLE ABSTRACT What happens when the invisible blueprint of our digital age the chip layout becomes the target of piracy? Who owns the
BOTTLE BATTLES
TRADE DRESS AND SHAPE MARKS IN VODKA BRANDING CASE NAME: Gorbatschow Wodka KG v. John Distilleries Ltd. CITATION: 2011 (47) PTC 100 (Bom); Notice of
FROM LAUGHTER TO LAWSUITS
THE COPYRIGHT STORY BEHIND MEMES Abstract People everywhere laugh at their phones not because of the device, but because someone has cleverly mocked a scenario