Back
2012 Supreme(Del) 1975
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
HIMA KOHLI, J.
IN THE MATTER OF M/S HT MEDIA LIMITED - Plaintiff
Versus
MR. ANAND PANDEY AND ANR. - Defendants
CS(OS) 1107/2008
Decided On : 5th October, 2012
Mr. Subhash Srivastava, Advocate
None.
Unauthorized association with a leading media house's senior management constitutes misrepresentation and can lead to a permanent injunction.
Headnote:
Misrepresentation - Media House - [Trade Marks Act, 1999, Section 29(2), Section 134] - The court found that the defendants attempted to mislead the public by associating the senior management of the plaintiff company with their publication without obtaining any authorization or consent. The plaintiff was granted a permanent injunction against the defendants from using the name of the plaintiff or its management/employees in their advertisement material.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff, a leading media house, filed a suit against the defendants for misrepresenting that their magazine was associated with the plaintiff and its senior management.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the defendants attempted to deceive the public by falsely associating with the plaintiff's senior management without authorization.
Issues: Misrepresentation, Unauthorized Use of Name
Ratio Decidendi: The defendants' attempt to associate with the plaintiff's senior management without authorization constituted misrepresentation and deception.
Final Decision: The court decreed in favor of the plaintiff, granting a permanent injunction against the defendants from using the name of the plaintiff or its management/employees in their advertisement material.
HIMA KOHLI, J.
1. At the outset, counsel for the plaintiff submits that he proposes to confine the relief in the present suit to a decree of permanent injunction against the defendants for restraining them from using the name of the plaintiff, its employees, editors, members or any deceptive variant thereof in their advertisement material in any form.
2. The present suit has been instituted on behalf of the plaintiff company by Mr. Majoj Bhargava, A.G.M. (Legal), described as an authorized signatory of the plaintiff company, competent to sign and verify the plaint and institute and prosecute the suit. The plaintiff has filed the suit against the defendant No.2, “Poorvanchal Vishesh”, a magazine published and edited by the defendant No.1, Mr. Anand Pandey. The photocopy of the power of attorney dated 14.2.2007 executed in favour of Mr. Majoj Bhargava has been filed (marked as “A”) and the original thereof has been produced by the counsel for the plaintiff, perused by the Court and returned to him. Mr. Manoj Bhargava (PW-1) is also the deponent of the affidavit dated 23.2.2011 tendered in evidence as PW-1 and marked as Ex.PW-A. 3. It is averred in the plaint that the plaintiff is a leading media house of the country that is engaged in the business of print media, radio, internet, etc. The plaintiff claims to enjoy a leadership position in the English and Hindi newspaper markets in India. It has a flagship publication in the name of “Hindustan Times” which is a daily newspaper published in English and “Hindustan”, a Hindi daily. Both the newspapers are stated to have a wide circulation in India. Apart from the “Hindustan Times” and “Hindustan”, the plaintiff claims that it has other publications including “Mint” (English Business daily) and “Nandan” (Monthly children’s magazine).
4. It is averred in the plaint that the cause of action for instituting the present suit against the defendants had arisen in May 2008 when it was brought to the notice of the representatives of the plaintiff that defendant No.1, the publisher and Editor of defendant No.2, was representing on their website at www.poorvanchalvishesh.com that their magazine published under the name of “Poorvanchal Vishesh” was being published by the plaintiff. On subsequent inquiries made by the plaintiff, it was revealed that the defendants were operating the aforesaid website, wherein it was claimed that the “magazine ‘Poorvanchal Vishesh’ is a Hindi National News Magazine founded by the auspices of Editors, Editor-in-Chief and other prominent media persons of Hindustan Times Group”. Further, the defendants had stated in their magazine (April 2008) Issue No.20 that Ms. Mrinal Pande, the Group Editor of Hindustan is the Group Editor of the magazine and Ms. Shobhana Bhartia is the President of the magazine (Ex.PW1/4). The defendants had also displayed the pictures of Ms. Mrinal Pande and Ms. Shobhana Bhartia on their website. A copy of the webshot of the defendants taken by the plaintiff and placed on record is marked as Ex.PW1/3. Additionally, the plaintiffs claim to have come upon the magazine of the defendants, “Poorvanchal Vishesh” (Issue No.20) wherein on the very first page, the name of Ms. Mrinal Pande was mentioned as the Group Editor of the said magazine. It is averred in the suit that she does not have any association with the defendants and nor had she consented at any time to be associated with them. The original issue of the aforesaid magazine of the defendant No.2, published in April 2008 is handed over by the counsel for the plaintiff and taken on record.
5. Aggrieved by the aforesaid activities of the defendants in trying to misrepresent to the public at large that they are associated with the senior management of the plaintiff company, both, for their magazine and on their website, the present suit for permanent injunction has been instituted against the defendants.
6. The present suit was registered on 30.5.2008. On the said date, an ex parte ad i
