Commercial Court at Rajarhat Restrains TV19 Network Over Trademark Infringement and Deceptive Brand Use

In a significant move to protect intellectual property within the media sector, the Commercial Court at Rajarhat, North 24 Parganas, has granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction against TV 19 Network. Presiding Judge Ishani Chakravarty Banerjee ruled that the plaintiff, Associated Broadcasting Company Pvt Ltd (ABCPL), established a strong prima facie case of trademark infringement, passing off, and copyright violation against the defendant.

The Battle Over Brand Identity

The dispute centers on the well-known "TV9" brand, which has been operated by ABCPL since 2004. The plaintiff argued that their established reputation, built through extensive nationwide broadcasting and substantial investment, was being undermined by the defendant's adoption of the "TV19," "TV19 Network," and "TV19 Network Bangla" marks. ABCPL contended that the defendant’s branding—characterized by similar logo designs, color schemes, and trade dress—was clearly intended to ride upon the goodwill of the TV9 network, causing recurring confusion among consumers and advertisers.

Court Dispenses with Mandatory Mediation Due to Urgency

A pivotal aspect of the court's order was the decision to dispense with the mandatory pre-institution mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. Relying on established judicial principles, the court reasoned that in cases of ongoing intellectual property infringement, procedural delays could leave a plaintiff remediless. Judge Banerjee noted that the urgency pleaded by the plaintiff was genuine, as the defendant’s continued operation on digital platforms and television was causing irreparable injury to the plaintiff's statutory rights.

Legal Precedent and the Protection of Intellectual Rights

The court anchored its decision in several landmark judgments. Referencing Novenco Building and Industry A/S v. Xero Energy Engineering Solutions Pvt. Ltd. , the court highlighted that "the insistence of pre-institution mediation in a situation of ongoing infringement, in effect, would render the plaintiff remediless." Furthermore, applying the standard set in Pernod Ricard India Pvt. Ltd. v. Karanveer Singh Chhabra , the court observed that exact imitation is not required to establish liability; the likelihood of consumer confusion is the paramount consideration.

Key Observations

The court's assessment was clear regarding the visual and conceptual similarities between the two brands:

• "The insistence of pre-institution mediation in a situation of ongoing infringement, in effect, would render the plaintiff remediless allowing the infringer to continue to profit under the protection of procedural formality."
• "In actions alleging continuing infringement of intellectual property rights, urgency must be assessed in the context of the ongoing injury and the public interest in preventing deception."
• " Deceptive similarity does not necessitate exact imitation and what is material is the likelihood of confusion in the mind of the consumer."

The Path Forward for TV19

The court has issued a temporary restraint, prohibiting TV 19 Network and its associates from utilizing the contested marks, logos, and color combinations until September 5, 2026. This order serves as a safeguard to prevent further dilution of the TV9 brand while the legal proceedings continue. The court notably clarified that the defendant remains free to conduct business under a different brand identity that does not create deceptive similarity or trade on the plaintiff's established reputation. The defendants have been ordered to file a show-cause response within 15 days of receiving notice.