IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Jayant Nath, J.
Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
Arg Outlier Media Pvt Ltd & Ors. - Respondent
Civil Suit (Comm) No. 434 of 2017
Decided On : 23-10-2020
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. trademark infringement and distinctiveness. (Para 1 , 2 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. allegations of misappropriation of goodwill. (Para 7 , 8 , 11 , 12) |
| 3. breach of contract and confidentiality. (Para 9 , 10) |
| 4. defendants' arguments regarding legal standing. (Para 14 , 15) |
| 5. evaluation of common speech versus trademark rights. (Para 18 , 19 , 60) |
| 6. res sub judice defense and its implications. (Para 22 , 23 , 28) |
| 7. interim injunction on trademark usage. (Para 65 , 66) |
JUDGMENT
Jayant Nath, J. - IA No.7306/2017
1. The aforesaid suit is filed by the plaintiff seeking a decree of permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants, etc. from using the trade mark/title/tagline NEWSHOUR or any other such mark/title/tagline comprising NEWSHOUR as a part thereof amounting to infringement of the plaintiff''s registered mark. A decree of permanent injunction is also sought to restrain the defendants from adopting or using the trademarks/titles/taglines NATION WANTS TO KNOW or any other trade mark/title/tagline either by itself or comprising NATION WANTS TO KNOW or any derivatives or combinations thereof. Other connected reliefs are also sought.
2. Ia No. 7306/2017 is filed by the plaintiff under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC seeking an interim injunction to restrain the defendants from adopting and using the trademarks/titles/taglines NEWSHOUR and NATION WANTS TO KNOW or any other trade mark/title/tagline comprising NEWSHOUR as a part thereof amounting to infringement of the plaintiff''s registered trade mark as well as dilution or acts of passing off.
3. I may only note that when this matter came up for hearing on 05.07.2017, this court noted the submission of learned senior counsel for the plaintiff that he does not wish to press for an interim order at that stage. This court also directed that till the present suit is pending, none of the parties to the suit will report or publish any news with regard to it except reproducing the court order and the order was not to operate against third party publication or news channels or social media.
4. The plaintiff Company is said to be the flagship Company of the Times Group carrying on print media business since 1838. The key business of the plaintiff Company is television broadcasting and its distribution services. The television division of the Times Group is under the plaintiff Company. ''Times Now'' is a news channel operated by the plaintiff having several segments of programmes. One of such programmes, it is stated, which was launched in 2006 titled as THE NEWSHOUR pertained to discussions, panel discussions and debates on current topics. This programme THE NEWSHOUR was launched by Times Now on 31.01.2006. It is stated that the title of the said programme THE NEWSHOUR is the plaintiff''s registered trade mark and has been in continuous use since 2006 having been developed in various forms and derivatives including word and label marks. It is claimed that the mark THE NEWSHOUR has attained distinct identity to differentiate the programme amongst other programmes in the industry. The plaintiff gives the details of the registration of the trade mark THE NEWSHOUR under Classes 16, 35 and 38, the registration being dated 15.05.2014 with the user claimed since 31.01.2006. Hence, it is claimed that the plaintiff being the proprietor of the trade mark THE NEWSHOUR has a statutory right to the exclusive use thereof in India. The plaintiff has also applied for registration of the mark NEWSHOUR in Classes 9 and 41 and the same are pending registration before the Trade Mark Registry.
It is also claimed that every month the plaintiff releases multiple advertisements for its publication through e-mails, newspaper ads, etc. It is claimed that the Television Audience Measurement (TAM) and Broadcast Audience Research Council (BARC) Reports for the year 2010 suggest that the plaintiff''s Channel Times Now and the programmes aired on the channels have gathered maximum number of eye b
Cadila Health Care Ltd. vs. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd.
Cadila Healthcare Limited vs. Gujarat Co-operative Milk Marketing Federation Ltd.
Erven Warnink BV vs. J. Townend & Sons
Globe Super Parts vs. Blue Super Flame
Kavi Raj Pandit Durga Dutt Sharma vs. N.P. Laboratories
Lakshmikant vs. Patel vs. Chetanbhat Shah and Anr.
Living Media India Ltd. & Anr. vs. Alpha Dealcom Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
Procter & Gamble Manufacturing (Tianjin) Co. Ltd. vs. Anchor Health & Beauty Care Pvt. Ltd.
Reckitt and Colman Products Ltd. vs. Borden Inc and Ors.
Ruston & Hornsby Ltd. vs. Zamindara Engineering Co.
Skyline Education Institute (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. S.L. Vaswani & Anr.
Virgo. Industries (Eng.) P. Ltd. vs. Venturetech Solutions P. Ltd.
AI
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.