Delhi High Court
Rita Rikh vs Arvind Gautam on 31 July, 2025
Author: C. Hari Shankar
Bench: C. Hari Shankar
$~45
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ FAO (COMM) 141/2024
RITA RIKH .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Rohit Bansal, Adv.
versus
ARVIND GAUTAM .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Vishal Tewari, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE OM PRAKASH SHUKLA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
% 31.07.2025
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
1. This appeal, we are constrained to say, is totally unnecessary
and has taken up unnecessary judicial time.
2. Having been granted, by the learned District Judge
(Commercial Court), Dwarka1, the exact relief sought by her, the
appellant has approached this Court, like Oliver Twist, wanting more.
3. The appellant instituted CS (COMM) 472/2023 before the
District Judge (Commercial Court), Dwarka alleging infringement, by
the respondents, of the appellant's registered trademark "Dr. Rikh's
Clinic". The trademark was not registered and the case set up by the
1 "the learned Commercial Court" hereinafter
FAO (COMM) 141/2024
appellant is of passing off.
4. The appeal was accompanied by an application under Order
XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC, seeking interim injunction against
the respondent. The prayer clause in the application reads thus:
"It is, therefore, most respectfully and humbly prayed that this
Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to
a) Pass an ad-interim ex-parte order restraining the
Defendant its partners or proprietors, principal officers,
servants, agents and distributors and all others acting on its
behalf as the case may be from using plaintiffs trademark
"Dr Rikh's clinic" for its services;
b) Pass an order directing the Defendant to file a statement
of accounts and assets on affidavit within a period of 2
weeks from service of notice of the present application, and
restraining the Defendant from disposing of or dealing with
his assets in a manner which may adversely affect the
Plaintiffs ability to recover damages (as may be
computable), costs or other pecuniary remedies which may
be finally awarded to the Plaintiff;
c) Pass any other order as the court may deem fit."
5. The learned Commercial Court has, vide the impugned order
dated 14 May 2024, granted interim relief exactly in the terms prayed
by the appellant. The operative portion of the impugned order reads
thus:
"In view of the foregoing discussions and the statement made by
the defendant recorded separately, it is directed that the defendant,
his agents and distributors are restrained from using the trade mark
"Dr. Rikh's Clinic" in any manner or any form including on any
material with immediate effect till disposal of the suit. Application
under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC stands disposed of
accordingly."
FAO (COMM) 141/2024
6. The appellant is not, however, satiated. She wants more. She
has, therefore, approached this Court by means of the present appeal,
praying that the order passed by the learned Commercial Court be
modified and that the injunction against the respondent be extended to
cover the word "Rikh" and not limited to the mark "Dr. Rikh's
Clinic".
7. It is obvious that this appeal is completely frivolous. There was
no prayer by the appellant before the learned Commercial Court for
any injunction against the use, by the respondent, of the mark "Rikh".
The prayer was specifically against use of the mark "Dr. Rikh's
Clinic". That prayer stands granted.
8. We do not see how the appellant could even come to this Court
by means of the present appeal seeking a modification of the order
passed by the learned Commercial Court and extending the injunction
to the mark "Rikh" per se.
9. Though we would have been inclined to award costs in this
matter, we restrain ourselves from doing so.
10. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
OM PRAKASH SHUKLA, J.
JULY 31, 2025/aky
FAO (COMM) 141/2024
