The Delhi High Court in Entertainment Network (India) Limited v. Https//Tuneincom/Podcasts/Arts—Culture Podcasts/ Bangla-Sunday-Suspense-P2082186 / And Ors. [CS(COMM) 880/2022, decided on November 4, 2024] granted permanent injunction against websites infringing the plaintiff's intellectual property rights. The plaintiff, a subsidiary of Times of India Group operating FM radio stations, sought court intervention after discovering multiple websites and applications unauthorized broadcasting their copyrighted content under registered trademarks ('Sunday Suspense', 'Mirchi', 'Radio Mirchi'
Facts of the Case:
Entertainment Network (India) Limited, a subsidiary of Bennett, Coleman & Co. Ltd. (Times of India Group), stands as one of India's largest radio broadcasters. Operating numerous private FM stations both domestically and internationally, the company broadcasts audio content under its registered trademarks "Mirchi" and "Radio Mirchi". The company holds multiple trademark registrations, including specific registrations for "Sunday Suspense" across various classes since 2009.
Since its inception in 2009, the plaintiff has invested substantial resources in producing and broadcasting audio content under "Sunday Suspense" and "Mirchi"/"Radio Mirchi" brands. Their efforts and financial investments have yielded significant popularity, attracting a vast listener base both in India and globally. This success has translated into substantial revenue generation through internet streaming and transmission of their content.
In 2021, during routine due diligence exercises, the plaintiff discovered widespread infringement of their intellectual property rights. The violations included an Amazon webpage using the "Sunday Suspense" mark, a headfone.co.in channel unauthorized broadcasting their content, and multiple Android applications with names like "Original Sunday Suspense/Bengali Stories" and "Sunday Suspense Bhoot Stories-1000+ stories". Additionally, social media platforms featured infringing content under the name "Golpo Wala".
The company promptly issued six Cease and Desist notices to defendants 1-25, highlighting their intellectual property violations and demanding content removal. Following these discoveries, the plaintiff implemented stricter surveillance measures to identify other infringing entities. Despite these notices, the unauthorized broadcasting, transmission, and usage of their trademarks continued without any valid permissions or licenses.
The plaintiff particularly sought injunctive relief against defendants 1-25 who were directly infringing their rights, while defendants 26-28 were intermediaries and defendants 31-62 were directed to disclose details of servers being used by the primary infringers (defendants 1-25).
Held by the Court:
The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CS(COMM) 880/2022 held that:
The Court primarily observed that the case warranted action under Order VIII Rule 10 CPC, given that only defendants 26-28 (intermediaries) had appeared and complied with interim orders, while the remaining defendants had failed to file written statements despite proper service. The Court emphasized that this procedural default, combined with the clear evidence of infringement, justified proceeding ex-parte against the non-appearing defendants.
Drawing from Christian Broadcasting Network, INC case [2018 SCC OnLine Del 11666], the Court underscored that commercial suits, particularly those involving intellectual property rights, demand expeditious disposal when defendants display dilatory tactics. This precedent established that courts must act decisively while ensuring the authenticity and unimpeachable nature of the plaintiff's claims.
The Court referred extensively to Nirog Pharma Pvt. Ltd. v. Umesh Gupta [(2016) 235 DLT 354], which had established that Order VIII Rule 10 serves to expedite justice while requiring courts to carefully evaluate the contents of plaints and supporting documents. The judgment emphasized that such evaluation should confirm the unimpeachable character of evidence, negating the need for additional proof.
Given the documented instances of infringement, proven trademark registrations, and clear unauthorized usage by defendants, the Court found the plaintiff's case comprehensively established. The Court noted that no fact required further evidentiary proof, particularly given the defendants' failure to contest the allegations despite proper service.
Cases Referred:
1. Christian Broadcasting Network, INC Versus CBN News Private Limited [2018 SCC OnLine Del 11666]:
- Established scope of Order VIII Rule 10 CPC in commercial suits
- Emphasized expeditious disposal in IP matters
2. Nirog Pharma Pvt. Ltd. v. Umesh Gupta [(2016) 235 DLT 354]:
- Detailed guidelines for invoking Order VIII Rule 10 CPC
- Highlighted need for caution in examining uncontested claims
Relevant Sections:
- Order VIII Rule 10 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
- Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts Act, 2015
- Trade Marks Act, 1999
- Copyright Act, 1957
Comentarios