Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Prathiba M. Singh, J.
Ht Media Limited & Anr. - Appellantss
Versus
Www.hindustantimes.tech & Anr. - Respondents
CS (Comm) 352 of 2022 & I.As. 8211-15 of 2022
Decided On : 24-05-2022
Exemption - Commercial Courts Act - u/S 80 CPC - O XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 CPC - CS (COMM) 352/2022 - [Commercial Courts Act, 2015, Section 80 CPC, Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 CPC]
Fact of the Case:
The Plaintiffs sought protection of the mark 'Hindustan Times' and various articles, logos, and devices. They alleged infringement of copyright, trademark, and passing off by Defendant No.1's registration of the domain name www.hindustantimes.tech. The Plaintiffs claimed that Defendant No.1 imitated their intellectual property and targeted Indian internet users, leading to territorial jurisdiction in Delhi.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that Defendant No.1 intended to encash the goodwill of the Plaintiffs and misuse their mark and content. A prima facie case for an ex-parte ad interim injunction was established, and the Court granted relief in favor of the Plaintiffs. The Court also directed disclosure of the registrant details, blocking of the domain name, and enforcement of the injunction through ICANN regulations.
Issues: The issues involved infringement of intellectual property rights, territorial jurisdiction, and enforcement of injunction orders.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court's decision was influenced by the prima facie case of infringement, the balance of convenience in favor of the Plaintiffs, and the potential irreparable loss and injury to the Plaintiffs. The enforcement of the injunction through ICANN regulations also played a crucial role in the decision.
Final Decision: The Court granted an ex-parte ad interim injunction in favor of the Plaintiffs, restraining Defendant No.1 from using the domain name www.hindustantimes.tech or any similar mark, and from publishing content in violation of the Plaintiffs' copyright. The Court also directed disclosure of registrant details, blocking of the domain name, and enforcement of the injunction through ICANN regulations.
ORDER
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
I.A.8215/2022 (for exemption)
2. This is an application filed on behalf of the Plaintiffs for exemption from filing certified/clearer/proper/translated copies of documents. The exemption is allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
3. I.A.8215/2022 is disposed of.
I.A.8214/2022 (for exemption for court fee)
4. This is an application seeking exemption from filing the Court Fees at this stage. Exemption is allowed. Let the Court Fees be filed within one week.
5. I.A.8214/2022 is disposed of.
I.A.8213/2022 (for additional documents)
6. This is an application seeking leave to file additional documents under the Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts Act, 2015 (hereinafter, 'Commercial Courts Act'). The Plaintiffs, if they wish to file additional documents at a later stage, shall do so strictly as per the provisions of the Commercial Courts Act.
7. I.A.8213/2022 is disposed of.
I.A.8212/2022 (u/S 80 CPC)
8. In view of the fact that the Plaintiffs have sought an ex parte ad-interim injunction as also considering the nature of the dispute, the Plaintiffs are exempted from issuing notice to the Defendant Nos.12 & 13 under section 80 CPC.
9. I.A.8212/2022 is disposed of.
CS (COMM) 352/2022
10. Let the plaint be registered as a suit.
11. Issue summons to the Defendants through all modes upon filing of Process Fee.
12. 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 Plaintiffs, without which the written statement shall not be taken on record.
13. Liberty is given to the Plaintiffs to file a replication within 15 days of the receipt of the written statement(s). Along with the replication, if any, filed by the Plaintiffs, an affidavit of admission/denial of documents of the Defendants, be filed by the Plaintiffs, 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.
14. List before the Joint Registrar for marking of exhibits on 4th August, 2022. It is made clear that any party unjustifiably denying documents would be liable to be burdened with costs.
15. List before Court on 22nd September, 2022.
I.A.8211/2022 (u/O XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 CPC)
16. The Plaintiffs have filed the present suit for permanent injunction restraining infringement of copyright, trademark, passing off and other reliefs. The Plaintiff No.1- HT Media Limited and Plaintiff No.2 - HT Digital Streams Ltd. seek protection of the mark 'Hindustan Times' as also various articles, logos, devices etc. which belong to the Plaintiffs. The newspaper 'Hindustan Times' is one of India's oldest newspapers, which started publication in 1924 and is stated to have around 8 million readers. Since the advent of online publication, the Plaintiffs also use various domain names to publish their newspapers in digital form. The flagship website of the Plaintiffs is www.hindustantimes.com which is stated to have been growing by more than 40 million unique users in the past three years. The said website had over 145 million monthly page views and 25 million monthly unique visitors. The said website has consistently been ranked amongst top 10 news websites in the world by Forbes. The plaint gives the details of the manner in which the said website has become extremely popular in accessing news online.
17. The name 'Hindustan Times' was also the corporate name/ trading style of Plaintiff No.1's predecessor 'The Hindustan Times Limited' which was incorporated in the year 1924. The Plaintiffs also own trademark registrations for the mark 'Hindustan Times' in various forms, variants, derivatives including Hindustan Times, Hindustan Times.com, Hindustan Times Comics, Hindus
The judgment establishes the importance of protecting intellectual property rights, territorial jurisdiction in infringement cases, and the enforcement of injunction orders through ICANN regulations.
The Court upheld the importance of protecting intellectual property rights and preventing unfair competition through the grant of an ex-parte ad-interim injunction.
The court established that unauthorized distribution of cinematograph films constitutes copyright infringement, allowing for dynamic injunctions to protect against evolving infringement tactics.
The court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction against trademark and copyright infringement, emphasizing the plaintiffs' strong prima facie case and the urgency necessitating immediate relief.
The case established the importance of protecting intellectual property rights and preventing trademark infringement, especially when there is a likelihood of irreparable injury to the rightful owner....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the protection of trademarks and prevention of infringement and passing off, as well as the application of procedural rules under the Civil Procedu....
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
