IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Kailash Gambhir, J.
BATA India Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
A.M. Turaz And Others - Respondents
Decided On : 15-10-2012
JUDGMENT :
Kailash Gambhir, J.
IA No. 18245/2012 in CS (OS) No. 3010/2012
1. This order shall dispose of the application filed by the plaintiff under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 r/w Section 151 of the CPC to restrain the defendants, their servants, employees, agents, partners/ proprietors, directors, officers, associates or sister concerns, marketing offices, or any person or entity acting on their behalf or under their authority from releasing from releasing, distributing, exhibiting, performing or communicating to the public by any means or technology oral or audio visual performance of the impugned song 'Mehngai'. It would be pertinent to give a brief conspectus of the facts of the present case to decide the present application. The plaintiff has filed the present suit for permanent injunction restraining infringement of its trademark/name, passing off, defamation, rendition of accounts, damages etc. against the defendants inter-alia on the grounds that the plaintiff is the owner/exclusive licence of legendary brands including BATA, Marie Claire, Hush Puppies, Scholl, North Star, Power, Bubblegummers, Comfit, Koolkids, Sparx etc., and the said trademark and logo BATA is registered in the name of the plaintiff since 14th April, 1969, the same being valid and subsisting up to 2014. It is also the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff is a globally renowned trade name in the footwear products and the plaintiff enjoys high reputation for its honest and principled conduct, quality and reliability of their products. The plaintiff claims that its retail outlets serve approximately 1 million customers per day and the plaintiff operates around 1200 retail stores and provides direct and indirect employment to thousands of people in India. The plaintiff also claims to be the recipient of various national and international awards. The main grievance of the plaintiff against the defendants is for the alleged offending song "Mehngai" in their forthcoming movie "Chakravyuh". As per the plaintiff, the said song is being used to promote the film Chakravyuh on YouTube and the said movie is likely to be released in various cinemas very shortly. As per the plaintiff, the following lyrics in the said song are offending so as to cause serious harm to the reputation and goodwill of the plaintiff:-
Birla Ho Ya Tata Ambani Ho Ya Bata, Apne Apne Chakar Mein Desh Ko Hai Kata Birla Ho Ya Tata Ambani Ho Ya Bata Apne Apne Chakar Mein Desh Ko Hai Kata
Are humre hi khoon se inka engine chale dhakadhak, Aam admi ki jeb ho gai hai safa chat, aam aadmi ki jeb ho gai safachat.
2. As per the plaintiff the lyrics used in the said song are per se defamatory and the transmission of the same either through promos or in the film or through CDs etc by the defendants for their own commercial and profitable motives will disparage and dilute the goodwill and reputation of the plaintiff amongst the common people. The plaintiff has also averred that under the pretext of condemning corruption, the defendants have publically condemned the plaintiff in order to generate public hatred and contempt towards the plaintiff, purely for the sake of profit, with no other intention and without there being any foundation or basis for the same. Based on these facts, the plaintiff has claimed the grant of an ad interim injunction to restrain the defendants, their employees, servants, agents, etc from releasing, distributing, exhibiting, performing or communicating to the public by any means or technology including but not limited to making available on the internet the words or any aural or audiovisual performance of the song "Mehngai" which would have the effect of defaming the plaintiff or damaging its reputation and goodwill amongst the public at large.
3. Arguing the stay application, Mr. Neeraj K. Kaul, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the plaintiff submitted that the particular lines in the offending song are per se defamatory in nature, disparaging the long established reputation of t
Cadbury (India) Ltd. Vs. Dr. M.C. Saxena
Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd. and Others Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others
Hari Shankar Vs. Kailash Narayan and Others
K.A. Abbas Vs. The Union of India (UOI) and Another
K.V. Ramaniah Vs. Special Public Prosecutor
Mrs. Maneka Gandhi Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Another
Phoolan Devi Vs. Shekhar Kapoor and Others
R. Rajagopal alias R.R. Gopal and Another Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Others
Ramesh Dalal Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others
Ramlila Maidan Incident Vs. Home Secretary, Union of India (UOI) and Others
Selvi J. Jayalalithaa and Another Vs. R. Rajagopal @ R.R. Gopal @ Nakkheerangopal and Another
Shilpa S. Shetty Vs. Magna Publications Co. Ltd. and Others
gpt-4
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.