SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2019 Supreme(Del) 215

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Jayant Nath, J.
Bigtree Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. – Petitioner
Versus
D. Sharma & Anr. - Respondents
CS(COMM) 609 of 2016
Decided On : 21-01-2019

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Sandeep Sethi, Sr.Adv. with Ms. Swathi Sukumar, Ms. Surya Rajappan and Mr. V.Akshay, Advs.
For the Respondent: Mr. M.K. Miglani, Mr. Jithin M.George, Mr. Vivek Kishore and Mr. Rahul Chandra, Advs.

Headnote:

BOOKMYSHOW - Trademark Infringement - Trade Marks Act, Section 17 - Summary: The court addressed the plaintiff's claim for permanent injunction against the defendants for using the mark 'BOOKMYEVENT' or the prefix 'BOOKMY' in relation to online ticketing services. The court discussed the legal provisions of the Trade Marks Act, Section 17, and interpreted the distinctiveness of the prefix 'BOOKMY' and its association with the plaintiff's business. The court considered previous judgments and held that the prefix 'BOOKMY' is descriptive in nature and has not acquired a distinctive meaning, thus denying the plaintiff's claim for injunction.

Fact of the Case:

The plaintiff sought a permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from using the mark 'BOOKMYEVENT' or the prefix 'BOOKMY' in relation to online ticketing services. The plaintiff claimed that its trademark 'BOOKMYSHOW' had acquired secondary meaning and distinctiveness, exclusively associated with the plaintiff.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the prefix 'BOOKMY' is descriptive in nature and has not acquired a distinctive meaning, denying the plaintiff's claim for injunction. The court also dismissed the plaintiff's claim that the defendants had relinquished the use of the impugned trademark.

Issues: The issues revolved around the distinctiveness of the prefix 'BOOKMY' and its association with the plaintiff's business, as well as the defendants' alleged relinquishment of the trademark.

Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of the distinctiveness of the prefix 'BOOKMY' and its descriptive nature, as well as the dismissal of the plaintiff's claim regarding the defendants' relinquishment of the trademark.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the plaintiff's applications for injunction and allowed the defendants' applications, concluding that the plaintiff had failed to make out a prima facie case for the injunction.

JUDGMENT :

JAYANT NATH, J.

I.A. Nos. 25542/2014 (u/O 39 R 1 & 2 CPC), 1345/2015 (u/O 39 R 4 CPC), 12014/2016(u/O 39 R 1 & 2 CPC) & 1028/2017 (u/O 39 R 1 & 2 CPC)

1. The present suit is filed by the plaintiff seeking an order of permanent injunction to restrain the defendants, their partners, proprietors, etc from in any manner using the mark ‘BOOKMYEVENT’ or using the prefix ‘BOOKMY’ as trade mark/trade name or as part of its corporate name, domain name or trading name in respect of online ticketing services or any similar services. Other connected reliefs have also been sought.

2. In IA No. 25542/2014, on 23.12.2014 this court had passed an ex parte interim injunction restraining the defendants from using the mark ‘BOOKMYEVENT’ or using the prefix ‘BOOKMY’ as trade mark/trade name or part of its corporate name, domain name or trading name in respect of online ticketing services or any other similar services.

3. IA No. 1345/2015 is filed for setting aside of the injunction order dated 23.12.2014. On 20.01.2015 in IA No. 1345/2015, the above injunction order was kept in abeyance till the next date of hearing. IA No. 12014/2016 is filed by the plaintiff to restrain the defendants, their partners, franchisees, licensees, etc. from using the mark ‘BOOKMYEVENT’ or using the prefix ‘BOOKMY’ . In the said application, it is pleaded that the defendants have conceded the impugned mark’s limited scope of activities and are estopped from carrying on any activities which they themselves have given up by filing TM-16. Hence, the said application. IA No. 1028/2017 is filed by the defendants under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC to restrain the plaintiff from misusing the order dated 23.12.2014.

4. The basic facts as stated in the plaint by the plaintiff are that the plaintiff is a highly successful online ticketing venture ‘BOOKMYSHOW’ started in 2007. It is pleaded that the said ‘BOOKMYSHOW.COM’ is a leading entertainment booking portal in the country and has a significant share in the market with approximately 500 persons working for the company. It has also been pleaded that since 2010 ‘BOOKMYSHOW’ has been a ticketing partner to the organizers of “Sunburn”, the music festival held in Goa, F1 Race, etc. It has a five year deal as the online ticketing partner for PVR Cinemas. It is pleaded that BOOKMYSHOW business has received extensive coverage in domestic and international media. Total revenues are said to be above Rs.150 crores per year. It is pleaded that by extensive sales, wide publicity, the plaintiff’s trade mark BOOKMYSHOW has acquired secondary meaning and has come to be exclusively associated with the plaintiff. It has also been pleaded that the plaintiff has acquired rights in the trade mark ‘BOOKMY’ which has become a prefix associated exclusively with the plaintiff. The prefix ‘BOOKMY’ is an essential part of the plaintiff’s registered trade mark. It is stated that the same has acquired distinctiveness over a period of time due to open, continuous and extensive use. It has also been pleaded that the plaintiff has filed various applications to consolidate its right in BOOKMYSHOW and BOOKMY trademarks which are pending and that the plaintiff has secured trade mark registration for the BOOKMYSHOW trade mark in Class 41 and 42.

5. It is further pleaded that defendant No. 2 appears to be a company using the trade name and style “Book my Event.in” based in New Delhi. In October 2014, while one of the plaintiff’s employees was browsing the internet, the plaintiff was shocked to find that the defendants have adopted the brand ‘Book my event’ in relation to the same line of business as the plaintiff’s ‘BOOKMYSHOW’ business. It is pleaded that the plaintiff has discovered that the defendant operates a website which is a copy of the plaintiff’s ‘BOOKMYSHOW’ website. It is pleaded that the defendants intend to deceive prospective customers and purchasing public. Defendants have also attempted to defraud the Trade Marks Registry by applying for regi













































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top