Back
PRATHIBA M.SINGH
Living Media India Limited – Appellant
Versus
Aabtak Channel. com (john Does) – Respondent
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
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
