The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Independent News Service Private Limited & Anr. v. Ravindra Kumar Choudhary & Ors., [CS(COMM) 498/2024 and other connected IAs, dated May 30, 2024], granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction restraining the Defendants from using the mark/logo "Baap ki Adalat" or any other trademark/logo deceptively similar to the Plaintiffs' trademark/logo "India TV" and "Aap Ki Adalat."
Facts of the Case:
Plaintiff No. 1, Independent News Service Private Limited, was incorporated in 1997 by its Chairman and Editor-in-Chief, Shri. Rajat Sharma, who is Plaintiff No. 2. In 2002, Plaintiff No. 1 obtained permission from the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Government of India, to uplink its 24-hour Hindi News channel called "INDIA TV." The mark "INDIA TV" was coined by Plaintiff No. 2.
The Plaintiffs' grievance was against Defendant No. 1, a self-proclaimed political satirist who created and published various video and audio content on social media platforms, including those of Defendant Nos. 2 to 4. The Plaintiffs were aggrieved by the deceptively similar mark "Baap ki Adalat" being used by Defendant No. 1, which was identical to the manner in which the Plaintiffs had been using their mark "Aap Ki Adalat" on their channels.
The Plaintiffs provided a comparative table of the rival marks and programs, showing the similarity between their show "Aap Ki Adalat" and the Defendant's show "Baap Ki Adalat." The Plaintiffs also provided a table of their trademark registrations for the marks "INDIA TV" and "Aap Ki Adalat."
The Plaintiffs claimed to have successfully prosecuted infringement cases concerning their marks before the Delhi High Court in the past. The Plaintiffs' counsel pointed out several proceedings where injunctions were granted in favor of the Plaintiffs, acknowledging the immense popularity and rights in their marks.
Aggrieved by the unauthorized use of their marks by the Defendants, the Plaintiffs approached the Delhi High Court seeking permanent injunction and other reliefs under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to protect their statutory and common law rights in their trademarks and to prevent violation of Plaintiff No. 2's personality rights.
Issue:
Whether the Defendants should be restrained from using the mark/logo "Baap ki Adalat" or any other trademark/logo deceptively similar to the Plaintiffs' trademark/logo "India TV" and "Aap Ki Adalat"?
Held by the Court:
The Court was satisfied that the Plaintiffs had made out a prima facie case for the grant of an ex-parte ad-interim injunction till the next date of hearing. The balance of convenience lay in favor of the Plaintiffs, and they were likely to suffer irreparable harm if the injunction was not granted.
The Court restrained Defendant No. 1 and all those acting on its behalf from using/dealing in any manner with the impugned trademark/logo "Baap ki Adalat" or any other trademark/logo deceptively similar to the Plaintiffs' trademark/logo "India TV" and "Aap Ki Adalat," either as trademark/trade mark/logo/trading style, domain name, social media posts, audio-video content, or in relation to any services so as to result in violation of the Plaintiffs' statutory and common law rights.
The Court restrained Defendant No. 1 and all those acting on its behalf from using/dealing in any manner with the photograph, video, and name of Plaintiff No. 2, either as trademark/trade mark/logo/trading style, domain name, social media posts, audio-video content, or in relation to any services so as to result in violation of Plaintiff No. 2's personality rights.
The Court directed Defendant Nos. 2 to 4 to remove the impugned content, including social media posts/links of Defendant No. 1 containing the impugned trademark/logo "Baap ki Adalat" or any other trademark/logo deceptively similar to the Plaintiffs' trademark/logo "India TV" and "Aap Ki Adalat," as detailed in the application and any other links that may be notified by the Plaintiffs.
______________________________________________________________________
DISCLAIMER: The views expressed are strictly of the author and NLF Tax and Legal Advisory. The contents of this article are solely for informational purposes and for the reader’s personal non-commercial use. It does not constitute professional advice or a recommendation of the firm. Neither the author nor the firm and its affiliates accept any liabilities for any loss or damage of any kind arising out of any information in this article nor for any actions taken in reliance thereon. Further, no portion of our article or newsletter should be used for any purpose(s) unless authorized in writing, and we reserve the legal right for any infringement on usage of our article or newsletter without prior permission
Commentaires