Dr. Arvind Kumar Gautam vs Rita Rikh

$~29
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision : 27.04.2026
+ RFA(COMM) 276/2026 CM APPL. 27796-27799/2026
DR. ARVIND KUMAR GAUTAM .....APPELLANT
Through: Mr. Vishal Tewari, Mr. Abhimanyu
Lall and Mr. Kumar Abhishek
Bhushan, Advs.
versus
RITA RIKH .....RESPONDENT
Through: None
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA
MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J. (ORAL)
CM APPL. 27797/2026 (for exemption)
1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions.
2. The application is disposed of.
CM APPL. 27799/2026 (for seeking condonation)
3. This application has been filed seeking condonation of delay of 64
days in re-filing the appeal.
4. This Court has perused the contents of the present application. The
application is bereft of material particulars and fails to furnish any
satisfactory explanation for the delay in re-filing. In the absence of any
‘sufficient cause’ being shown, as required in terms of the principles laid
down in Government of Maharashtra (Water Resources Department) v.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:MAHIMA
SHARMA
Signing Date:07.05.2026
12:05
RFA(COMM) 276/2026 Page 1 of 10

1
Borse Brothers Engineers and Contractors Pvt. Ltd. , the relief for
condonation is therefore rejected.
5. The application is dismissed and consequentially the appeal is time
barred.
RFA(COMM) 276/2026
6. Notwithstanding the fact that the appeal is time barred, we are
however proceeding to examine the merits of the appeal to avoid any delay
in the implementation of the decree.
7. The present appeal has been filed under Section 13 of the Commercial
Courts Act, 2015 read with Section 96 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
challenging the judgment and decree dated 12.12.2025 passed in CS
(COMM) No. 472/2023, by the Ld. District Judge (Commercial Court-01)
Dwarka, whereby the Respondent’s suit for permanent injunction for
restraining the Appellant from passing off the trade name ‘Dr. Rikh’s Clinic’
has been decreed, against the Appellant along with directions of delivery up
and damages to the extent of Rs. 1 lakh.
8. The Respondent claimed goodwill in the trade name ‘Dr. Rikh’s
Clinic’ on the basis of inheritance from her late father late Dr. Vijai Rikh wo
ran a medical clinic at the premises bearing no. C-2B/69B, Janakpuri, New
Delhi (‘Premises’) under the said trade name. Respondent contended that the
Appellant, who was inducted as a tenant in the Premises was illegally and
unauthorizedly carrying on business under the trade name Dr. Rikh’s Clinic
and thereby misrepresenting to the general public that he was in any manner
associated with late Dr. Vijai Rikh.
9. The Appellant has contended that he was a lawful tenant in the said
1
2021 SCC OnLine SC 233
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:MAHIMA
SHARMA
Signing Date:07.05.2026
12:05
RFA(COMM) 276/2026 Page 2 of 10

Premises inducted under a registered lease deed dated 17.03.2022 and was
independently carrying on his medical practice in his own professional
capacity.
10. The Appellant on 14.05.2024 undertook before the Trial Court to not
use the trade name ‘Dr. Rikh’s Clinic’ and was injuncted in terms of the said
statement.
11. Learned District Judge has post-trial decreed the suit in favour of the
Respondent and granted the relief of permanent injunction, delivery up and
damages to the tune of Rs. 1 lakh.
12. In the grounds of appeal, the Appellant has challenged the impugned
judgment on the ground that the Respondent failed to prove the essential
ingredients of passing off, namely goodwill, misrepresentation and
likelihood of damage. It is further contended that no evidence of actual loss
or quantified damages was led, yet the learned Trial Court awarded an
amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- on equitable considerations.
12.1. It is also the Appellant’s case that the learned Trial Court failed to
consider material admissions made by the Respondent in cross-examination,
including that she was not running any clinic, had no licence to operate a
medical establishment in India, and had no knowledge of the accounts or
income of the alleged clinic.
12.2. The Appellant has also filed separate proceedings seeking initiation of
perjury action against the Respondent on account of alleged false and
contradictory statements made on oath.
12.3. Accordingly, the Appellant contends that the impugned judgment
suffers from non-appreciation of pleadings and evidence and is therefore
liable to be set aside.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:MAHIMA
SHARMA
Signing Date:07.05.2026
12:05
RFA(COMM) 276/2026 Page 3 of 10

13. During arguments, learned counsel for the Appellant submitted that
the Appellant is not pressing the appeal insofar as it relates to the decree of
permanent injunction, as the Appellant had already undertaken and has been
restrained by interim injunction order dated 14.05.2024 from using the trade
name ‘ Dr. Rikh’s Clinic’ and has since discontinued its use. It was
submitted that the present appeal is being pressed only to challenge the
award of damages of Rs. 1,00,000/- , which, according to the Appellant,
could not have been granted in the absence of any evidence of actual loss or
quantified damages.
14. We have considered the submissions of the Appellant and perused the
record.
15. It is a matter of record that Respondent’s father late Dr. Vijai Rikh
used to practice under the trade name ‘Dr. Rikh’s Clinic’ since 1976 until
his death on 14.06.2021 from his residence-cum-clinic at No. C-2B/69B,
Janakpuri, New Delhi (‘Premises’). It is stated that late Dr. Vijai Rikh held a
degree in BIMS (‘Bachelor of Indian Medicine and Surgery’) and was
engaged in the business of Medical Analysis Services (‘MAS’) and was
rendering services in the field of Dermatology and Sexology. It is stated that
late Dr. Vijai Rikh also authored several medical books. It is stated that late
Dr. Vijai Rikh had several patients all over the country and therefore his
trade name ‘Dr. Rikh’s Clinic’ has acquired a goodwill due to the long and
uninterrupted use. It is stated that ‘Rikh’ is the surname of Respondent’s
father and it is a fancy name adopted by the ancestors of the Respondent.
16. The evidence, which has come on record undoubtedly shows that the
Appellant was misrepresenting himself as ‘Dr. Vijai Rikh’ to the public at
large and wrongfully representing that the clinic being operated by him is a
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:MAHIMA
SHARMA
Signing Date:07.05.2026
12:05
RFA(COMM) 276/2026 Page 4 of 10

continuation of the clinic operated by late Dr. Vijay Rikh.
The action of the Appellant in taking on lease the Premises bearing
No. C-2B/69B, Janakpuri, New Delhi, from where late Dr. Vijai Rikh had
admittedly operated his clinic under the trade name ‘Dr. Rikh’s Clinic’,
coupled with the uploading of his own photograph on the Just Dial platform
wrongfully posing as Dr. Vijai Rikh, further advertising his newly opened
clinic at Dwarka through the google account of ‘Dr. Rikh’s Clinic’ , and
wrongfully depicting the Respondent as MD and Chief Therapist, CSMLS
Canada on the letterhead prima facie indicates an explicit intention to
mislead the public into believing that the clinic being run by the Appellant
was the same clinic earlier operated by late Dr. Vijai Rikh and also
misrepresenting that Respondent is associated with the said operations.
17. The Trial Court at paragraph nos. 38 to 46 of the impugned judgment
has given detailed reasons for concluding that the plaintiff was trying to pass
off his own services as that of late Dr. Vijai Rikh under the trade name of
‘Dr. Rikh’s Clinic’. Relevant paragraph nos. 38, 39, 41, 45 and 46 reads as
under:
“ 38. Coming to the factual aspect, it is not in dispute that the premises
in question bearing no. C2B/69B, Janakpuri, New Delhi was given to
the defendant by the plaintiff by virtue of Rent Agreement / Lease
Deed dated 17.03.2022 Ex. PW-1/8. The defendant has not disputed
the above said submission of the plaintiff to the effect that the above
said promises was taken on lease by him from the plaintiff by virtue of
the Rent Deed dated 17.03.2022. A perusal of the Rent Deed reveals
that the above said premises bearing no. C2B/69B, Janakpuri, New
Delhi was let-out by the plaintiff to the defendant for residential
purposes only. There is ample material available on record to show
that the defendant started using the above said premises for running
the clinic under the trade name 'Dr. Rikh's Clinic'.
39. In the case in hand, the question is not of medicinal drugs or
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:MAHIMA
SHARMA
Signing Date:07.05.2026
12:05
RFA(COMM) 276/2026 Page 5 of 10

medical products and rather, the question is that of the trade name ‘Dr.
Rikh’s Clinic’. Plaintiff has placed on record the copies of the letter
heads used by Dr. Vijai Rikh as Ex. PW-1/9, screen shot of the photo
of defendant posing as Dr. Vijai Rikh on online : local search engine
platform Just Dial as Ex. PW-1/13, screenshot of the photo of
defendant advertising his newly opened clinic at Dwarka as that of Dr.
Vijai Rikh on google account of Dr. Rikh's Clinic as Ex. PW-1/ 14,
copy of trademark application no. 6038742 showing the status as on
12.04.2024 as ‘Abandoned’ as Ex. PW-1/19 and orders dated
12.01.2024 passed by the Registrar of Trade Marks in Trademark
application no. 6038742 as Ex.PW-1/20.
……….
41. The above said material available on record in the considered
opinion of this Court unequivocally and clearly proves that the
defendant was passing off his medical services as that of Late Dr.
Vijai Rikh under the trade name ‘Dr. Rikh’s Clinic’. To my mind, all
the three essential ingredients in an action of passing off are being
fulfilled in the present case.
……….
45. It is true that the plaintiff is not a doctor by profession and she
cannot practise medicine but it has to be seen that the plaintiff has
never claimed that she is a doctor by profession and the plaintiff has
only claimed that she is a qualified Medical Laboratory Technologist.
Perusal of the letterhead Ex..PW-1/10 reveals that it was the defendant
who had shown the plaintiff as MD and Chief Therapist, CSMLS
Canada on the letterhead and there is not even a single iota of
evidence on record to show that the plaintiff had ever shown herself to
be a doctor by profession.
46. Going by the above said discussion, I am of the opinion that the
plaintiff has been able to prove by way of cogent and reliable evidence
that the defendant had been passing off his own services as that of
Late Dr. Vijai Rikh under the name and style of ‘Dr. Rikh’s Clinic’. I
have no hesitation to hold that the plaintiff has been able to prove
issue no. 1 to the effect that the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of
Permanent Injunction. Accordingly, issue no. 1 is decided in favour of
the plaintiff and & against the defendant. A decree of Permanent
Injunction is passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant
to the effect that the defendant its partners or proprietors, principal
officers, servants, agents and distributors and all others acting on its
behalf are restrained from using the plaintiff’s trademark ‘Dr. Rikh's
Clinic’ services rendered by the defendant.”
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:MAHIMA
SHARMA
Signing Date:07.05.2026
12:05
RFA(COMM) 276/2026 Page 6 of 10

[Emphasis supplied]
18. We have perused the findings recorded by the Trial Court on the issue
of passing off in paragraphs 38 to 46 of the impugned judgment and find no
infirmity therein.
The Appellant, who goes by the name Dr. Arvind Kumar Gautam, has
no justification in law for representing himself as Dr. Vijai Rikh, on the
social media platforms and google account, except with an intent to mislead
the general public with respect to his association with late Dr. Vijai Rikh.
The actions of the Appellant are not merely restricted to passing off but is a
definite action of making fraudulent representation to the patients and
misleading them. The Appellant by using the trade name ‘Dr. Rikh’s Clinic’
for the premises which were actually used by late Dr. Vijai Rikh was
certainly acting malafide.
19. In view of the findings recorded in the impugned judgment, the decree
of permanent injunction passed against the Appellant restraining him from
passing off, calls for no interference on merits. Even otherwise, the
Appellant himself had made a statement before the Trial Court on
14.05.2024 undertaking not to use the trademark ‘Dr. Rikh’s Clinic’. In
these circumstances, the Trial Court rightly granted the decree of permanent
injunction on merits.
2
20. The Trial Court has also by the impugned judgment directed the
Appellant to deliver up all the printed material, which contains the
trademark ‘Dr. Rikh’s clinic’ to the Respondent. As noted above, the
Appellant has in the letterhead wrongfully depicted the name of the
Respondent thereby misrepresenting her association with the Appellant’s
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:MAHIMA
SHARMA
Signing Date:07.05.2026
12:05
RFA(COMM) 276/2026 Page 7 of 10

clinic. Such an action of the Appellant is illegal. Learned counsel for the
Appellant has not opposed the said direction and even otherwise we find that
the said direction is justified in the facts of this case to avoid any mischief.
21. Learned counsel for the Appellant during arguments has only sought
setting aside of the award of damages to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/- in favour
of the Respondent. The Appellant contends that since Respondent herself
could not have carried on the medical practice of late Dr. Vijai Rikh, no
damages have been suffered by her. The Appellant contends that there was
no evidence on record to justify the grant of the said damages, in favour of
the Respondent.
22. We are unable to agree with the submissions of the Appellant. The
material on record and findings of the Trial Court at paragraph nos. 38 to 46
plainly demonstrate that the Appellant fraudulently represented/posed on the
social media platforms and google account that he was Dr. Vijai Rikh by
posting photographs of himself and identifying himself as Dr. Vijai Rikh.
The Appellant in order to mislead the patients strategically took the
Premises on rent, which late Dr. Vijai Rikh had used for running his clinic,
and wrongfully used the trade name ‘Dr. Rikh’s Clinic’ for offering his
services from the same Premises. The Appellant during the course of his
services on the letterhead continued to use Dr. Vijai Rikh’s name, which is
evidence of misrepresentation. The dishonest intention of the Appellant to
pass off his services as the services of late Dr. Vijai Rikh and mislead the
patients is therefore proven from the record. The liability of
person/defendant who dishonestly and knowingly infringes plaintiff’s mark
to suffer injunction, and pay damages as well as costs has been
2
At paragraph 47 of the impugned judgment
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:MAHIMA
SHARMA
Signing Date:07.05.2026
12:05
RFA(COMM) 276/2026 Page 8 of 10

authoritatively settled in the judgments of this Court in Koninlijke Philips
3 4
and Ors. v. Amazestore and Ors. and Aero Club v. M/s Sahara Belts .
In fact, Rule 20 of Delhi High Court Intellectual Property Rights Division
(‘IPD’) Rules 2022 also lays down guidance on the manner in which
quantum of damages have to be calculated in infringement proceedings. The
said judgments and the Rules stipulate that the Court can make an
assessment of the damages taking into account the facts and evidence on
record. In this matter, the Appellant herein continued to illegally use the
trade name Dr. Rikh’ s Clinic and misrepresent himself as late Dr. Vijai Rikh
between 2022 till 14.05.2024. The Respondent/plaintiff asserted proprietary
rights in the trade name ‘Dr. Rikh’s Clinic’ and the Trial Court found the
same in her favour. The unauthorized use of the trade name by the Appellant
would entitle Respondent/plaintiff to be compensated on the measure of the
money she would have reasonably earned, if she would have granted a
license for the use of the said mark to a third party. In our considered
opinion, the damages of Rs. 1,00,000/- awarded by the Trial Court are
nominal, reasonable and was a necessary deterrent to discourage the
(proven) dishonest actions of the Appellant. The Trial Court was well within
its jurisdiction to award these nominal damages.
23. The present appeal is devoid of merit and, in view of the aforesaid
findings, we find it apposite to dismiss the present appeal both on merits as
well as on the ground of limitation, with exemplary costs of Rs. 25,000/-
payable to the Respondent within two [2] weeks from today. In the event of
failure to pay the said costs within the stipulated period, the Respondent
3
2019: DHC: 2185
4
2023: DHC: 8423
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:MAHIMA
SHARMA
Signing Date:07.05.2026
12:05
RFA(COMM) 276/2026 Page 9 of 10

shall be at liberty to recover the same in the execution proceedings.
24. Pending applications, if any, stands disposed of.
MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J
AJ/hp
APRIL 27, 2026/
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:MAHIMA
SHARMA
Signing Date:07.05.2026
12:05
RFA(COMM) 276/2026 Page 10 of 10