Delhi HC permanently restrains Ahmedabad firm from using ‘Hair Masters’ luxury salon trademark

The plaintiff salon had previously argued before the high court that it had more than 25 salons running in seven states and its salons located in Chandigarh and Mumbai’s Bandra are habitually visited by various Bollywood celebrities like Madhuri Dixit, Yami Gautam, Kangana Ranaut, Ayushmann Khurrana, Arjun Rampal, Rakhi Sawant, Gulshan Grover and Vani Kapoor.

The plaintiff salon had then contended that on enquiry they found that the defendant salon’s trademark was only registered on September 11, 2019, and they had been using the trademark since October 17, 2017. The plaintiff salon had registered its trademark in 2014 claiming to be its user since April 1, 2014, it was noted. The high court said the plaintiff had “made out a prima facie case in its favour” and the balance of convenience was in its favour as well. The court had held that if the interim relief is not granted, “irreparable injury would be caused to the Plaintiff”.

During the course of the hearing on February 20, in compliance with the court’s previous order GoDaddy said it had suspended the operation of the aforesaid domain http://www.thehairmasters.in. It was submitted that the authority of GoDaddy only extends to suspending and blocking the domain name and that outright blocking of the domain name could only be done by Internet Service Providers.

At this point, the plaintiff salon sought an order directing GoDaddy to transfer their domain name to itself so that it is not misused, which GoDaddy did not object to and was thus ordered by the court.

The high court also observed that despite the notice, there has been no appearance on behalf of the defendant salon and its partners, nor had they filed any response to the trademark infringement lawsuit. The plaintiff urged that the order in the suit may be made final and they be granted a decree of permanent injunction.

“As there is no contest to the claims in the plaint, and given the fact of the case, a clear-cut case of infringement of the plaintiff’s registered trademarks by the defendant within the meaning of section 29(2)(b) of the Trade Marks Act is made out, the plaintiff is entitled to grant of the prayers in the suit… The suit stands decreed in the aforesaid terms,” Justice Shankar said.

The court also permitted the plaintiff salon to “file a certificate of costs incurred before the concerned Taxation Officer/Joint Registrar who would hear the plaintiff… to determine the actual costs incurred and award the same. It is clarified that the costs would be payable only by Defendants 1 to 5 (defendant salon and its partners)”.