The judgment establishes the importance of freedom of speech and expression, the presumption in favor of films cleared by the Central Board of Film Certification, and the consideration of public interest in granting interim orders.

IA No.13727/2017 (under Section 149 read with Section 151 of the CPC for extension of time for making up deficiency in court fees).

1. Accepting the undertaking of the counsel for the plaintiffs to deposit the appropriate court fees latest on or before 27th November, 2017 and binding the plaintiffs thereto, the application is disposed of.

2. If the court fees is not so paid, the Registry to list the suit for dismissal.

IA No.13726/2017 (for exemption).

3. Allowed, subject to just exceptions.

4. The application is disposed of.

IA No.13725/2017 (under Order XI Rule 1(4) for filing additional documents).

5. The application is disposed of by permitting the plaintiffs to file additional documents along with the replication if any filed to the written statement of the defendants.

6. The application is disposed of.

IA No.13728/2017 (of the plaintiffs under Section 151 of the CPC for hearing in camera)

7. To be taken up in Chamber at 1415 hours.

ORDER :

1. The parties are advised to chill. Inspite of this unusual advice inter alia to the plaintiff no.1 Mattel, Inc., given by the United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit in a judgment (reported as 296 F.3d 894, in an appeal preferred by the plaintiff no.1 Mattel, Inc. in a lis inter alia with MCA Records, Inc.), the plaintiff no.1 Mattel, Inc. has now raised the same heat, as raised in that lis before the United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, in this Court, in this suit filed in conjunction with its Indian subsidiary Mattel Toys (India) Pvt. Ltd., plaintiff no.2 herein, against the producers of a Hindi film titled Tera Intezaar due to be released on 24th November, 2017.

2. The suit along with the application for interim relief and the application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) for holding the hearing on the ex parte injunction prayers in camera came up first before this Court today morning for admission. It was enquired from the counsel for the plaintiffs, whether he desired the hearing of the application for ‘in camera hearing’ also to be in camera. On the counsel for the plaintiffs answering in the affirmative, the matter was ordered to be taken up in Chamber at 1415 hours.

3. The counsel for the plaintiffs has at the outset been heard on the need for holding in camera hearing.

4. The counsel for the plaintiffs has contended that this suit pertains to a highly confidential subject matter which may invoke media attention leading to distorting/misrepresenting of facts and the proceedings before this Court and in the absence of media reporting the parties may also be more receptive to a settlement.

5. The plaintiffs claim to be the owner of the “BARBIE” trademark used in relation to toy dolls and other merchandise related to or connected to the toy doll named “BARBIE”.

6. It is pleaded (i) that the plaintiffs have produced or licensed the product to numerous motion pictures based on plaintiffs’ world famous “BARBIE” brand; (ii) the plaintiffs have worked with various public figures to create Barbie Dolls in their likeness; examples are given of Diana Ross, Audrey Hepburn, Princess Kate Middleton, J.K. Rowling, Grace Kelly, Jennifer Lopez, Marilyn Monroe, Shakira and the popular Indian actress Katrina Kaif; (iii) that the plaintiffs, around 15th November, 2017, came across a music video on YouTube of a song titled “Barbie Girl” from the movie Tera Intezaar scheduled to be released on 24th November, 2017; (iv) that the title and lyrics of the song used the registered and well known trademark “BARBIE” without an authorisation of the plaintiffs and in a manner antagonistic to the values and interests of the customers target base, the plaintiffs cater to; (v) that the Encyclopedia Britannica lists Barbie as an 11-inch tall plastic doll with figure of an adult woman that was introduced in 1959 by Mattle Inc.; (vi) the sales in India of Barbie products over the last five years have exceeded 2000 million Indian rupees; (vii) “BARBIE” reflects an aspirational fig