Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Prathiba M. Singh, J.
Living Media India Limited & Anr. - Appellants
Versus
Aabtak Channel.com (john Does) & Ors. - Respondents
CS (COMM) 193/2022 & I.As.4841-43/2022
Decided On : 30-03-2022
Injunction - Trademark Infringement - I.A. 4841/2022 - [Trade Marks Act, 1999, Section 29(4), Section 134] - The court granted an ad-interim injunction against the Defendants for infringing the well-established mark 'AAJ TAK' and its derivative forms on various social media platforms. The court directed the takedown of infringing profiles, accounts, videos, and channels, except for the name 'Sach Tak', within specified timelines. The court also issued directions for compliance and provision of BSI details of Defendants.
Fact of the Case:
The Plaintiffs sought permanent injunction against infringement of their trademarks, copyright, passing off, dilution, rendition of accounts, and damages. They claimed that their well-known mark 'AAJ TAK' and its derivative forms were being used illegally and unauthorisedly on various online platforms, leading to severe infringement of their rights.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the reputation and goodwill in the mark 'AAJ TAK' were well established, and the Plaintiffs' rights deserved protection. It was prima facie convinced of the case for granting an ad-interim injunction against some of the Defendants, as most of the offending names and logos used were infringing in nature.
Issues: The issues involved the infringement of the Plaintiffs' trademarks and the unauthorized use of their well-known mark 'AAJ TAK' and its derivative forms on various social media platforms.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the well-established reputation and goodwill of the mark 'AAJ TAK', the prima facie case for granting an ad-interim injunction, and the infringement of the Plaintiffs' rights by the Defendants' unauthorized use of the mark and its derivative forms.
Final Decision: The court granted an ad-interim injunction against the Defendants for infringing the well-established mark 'AAJ TAK' and its derivative forms on various social media platforms, except for the name 'Sach Tak'. The court issued specific directions for compliance and provision of BSI details of Defendants, and scheduled further hearings.
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:
The court recognized the well-established reputation and goodwill associated with the trademark ''AAJ TAK'' and its derivative forms, which are extensively used across social media platforms and various programs (!) (!) .
The plaintiffs sought a permanent injunction against unauthorized use and infringement of their trademarks, copyrights, passing off, dilution, and related rights, asserting that their rights are being severely infringed by multiple online entities (!) .
The court granted an ad-interim injunction to prevent further infringement, specifically directing the takedown of infringing profiles, accounts, videos, and channels on social media platforms, with the exception of the name ''Sach Tak'' [injunction details].
The court emphasized that most of the infringing names and logos used are deceptively similar or identical to the plaintiffs' marks, constituting infringement and a colorable imitation of the ''Aaj Tak'' logo (!) .
Directions were issued for the social media platforms and intermediaries to provide the Basic Subscriber's Information (BSI) details of the infringing defendants within one week, and for compliance with takedown orders within specified timelines (!) (!) .
Specific instructions were given for anonymous defendants (John Does) to remove infringing content within 36 working hours upon receiving information, and for platforms to notify plaintiffs if they do not comply, enabling further legal remedies (!) (!) .
The court allowed the plaintiffs to supply logos and infringing material via a pen drive to facilitate precise identification and inclusion in the order (!) .
The case involves the protection of trademarks under relevant laws, with the court asserting the importance of safeguarding the plaintiffs' rights against unauthorized online use, and scheduling further proceedings (!) .
Please let me know if you need a detailed analysis or specific legal advice based on this summary.
ORDER
Prathiba M. Singh, J. - This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
I.A. 4843/2022(for exemption)
2. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. I.A. 4843/2022 is disposed of.
CS (COMM) 193/2022
3. Let the plaint be registered as a suit.
4. Issue summons to the Defendant through all modes upon filing of Process Fee. Summons are accepted by Defendant No.31 and Defendant No.33.
5. The summons to the Defendants shall indicate that a written statement to the plaint shall be positively filed within 30 days from date of receipt of summons. Along with the written statement, the Defendants shall also file an affidavit of admission/denial of the documents of the Plaintiff, without which the written statement shall not be taken on record.
6. Liberty is given to the Plaintiff to file a replication within 15 days of the receipt of the written statement(s). Along with the replication, if any, filed by the Plaintiff, an affidavit of admission/denial of documents of the Defendants, be filed by the Plaintiff, without which the replication shall not be taken on record. If any of the parties wish to seek inspection of any documents, the same shall be sought and given within the timelines.
7. List before the Joint Registrar for marking of exhibits on 27th May, 2022. It is made clear that any party unjustifiably denying documents would be liable to be burdened with costs. 8. List before Court on 3rd August, 2022.
I.A. 4841/2022 (u/O XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 CPC)
9. The Plaintiffs have filed the present suit seeking permanent injunction restraining infringement of trade marks, copyright, passing off, dilution, rendition of accounts, damages, etc., against the Defendants. Plaintiff No.1 is engaged in the business of news publication and printing of various magazines including India Today and Business Today. Plaintiff No.2 runs popular television news channels including 'AAJ TAK'. 10. It is the case of the Plaintiffs that Plaintiff No.1 has registered the mark 'AAJ TAK' bearing trade mark number 1242922 in class 38 and trade mark number 1242921 in class 41. Moreover, the mark
is also registered in favour of Plaintiff No.1 under various classes. The said marks are stated to have been licensed to Plaintiff no. 2 vide a Trade Mark License Agreement dated 01st October, 2003.
11. The mark 'AAJ TAK' is a well-known mark which is used extensively on social media. The Plaintiffs have created various accounts, profiles and handles on social media and content sharing platforms such as Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Instagram etc. wherein millions of people subscribe to them. The mark 'AAJ TAK' has also been extended to various programs such as 'Agenda Aaj Tak', 'Sahitya Aaj Tak', 'Budget Aaj Tak', 'Panchayat Aaj Tak'. The Plaintiffs also claim to have established an extensive digital-first ecosystem with the suffix 'TAK' by using marks such as 'Bharat Tak', Astro Tak', 'Fit Tak', 'Mobile Tak', 'Kids Tak', 'Life Tak', 'Mumbai Tak', 'News Tak', 'Sports Tak', 'Food Tak', 'Duniya Tak', 'Crime Tak' etc.
12. Thus, the Plaintiffs claim that their goodwill and reputation is not merely limited to the mark 'AAJ TAK', but also extends to various formative marks of 'AAJ TAK' and other marks ending with the word 'TAK'. The 'AAJ TAK' series of marks, as also various marks such as 'Yoga Tak', 'Tech Tak', 'Sports Tak', 'Mobile Tak', 'News Tak', 'Astro Tak', 'Duniya Tak', 'Punjab Tak', 'U.P. Tak', 'M.P. Tak', 'Crime Tak', 'Gujarat Tak' etc., are all registered in favour of the Plaintiffs.
13. In the present suit, the grievance of Plaintiffs is that various known and unknown parties have started using Plaintiffs' trademark 'AAJ TAK' in on online platforms including Facebook, Twitter, Instagram. Various parties have also uploaded videos using infringing marks which are either derived from the mark 'AAJ TAK' or use the mark 'TAK' as suffix. Some parties are also using similar logo forms and devices as that of the Plaintiffs' registered marks. According to the Plaintiffs, such indiscrimina
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
