Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
C. Hari Shankar, J.
Cable News Network INC – Plaintiff
Versus
CTVN Calcutta Television Network Pvt. Ltd. – Defendant
C.S. (COMM) No. 309 of 2021, I.A. Nos. 7844, 9228 of 2021
Decided On : 28-04-2023
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. decision on applications filed under cpc (Para 1) |
| 2. plaintiff's corporate details and trademarks (Para 2 , 3 , 5) |
| 3. notice and responses between parties (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 4. allegations of infringement and rivalry (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 5. interlocutory injunction requirements (Para 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 6. legal considerations for territorial jurisdiction (Para 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 7. debates on jurisdiction and accessibility (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 8. arguments concerning defendant's business practices (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28) |
| 9. counterarguments from defendant's counsel (Para 29 , 30) |
| 10. judicial examination of jurisdiction under cpc (Para 31 , 32 , 33 , 34) |
| 11. clarifications on jurisdictional boundaries (Para 35 , 36) |
| 12. court's viewpoint on infringement standards (Para 37 , 38 , 39) |
| 13. final injunction against the defendant (Para 124 , 135) |
JUDGMENT :
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
1. By this judgment, I proceed to decide IA 7844/2021, preferred by the plaintiff against the defendant under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE , 1908 (CPC), seeking interlocutory injunctive reliefs and IA 9228/2021, by the defendant against the plaintiff under Order VII Rule 10 of the CPC, seeking the return of the plaint for want of territorial jurisdiction. Needless to say, if IA 9228/2021 is allowed, IA 7844/2021 would not survive for consideration, as this Court would, then, be coram non judice and the plaint would have to be returned to the plaintiff to be presented before the appropriate Court.
The plaint
2. The plaintiff Cable News Network Inc. is a company incorporated in Delaware, US, with its headquarters in Atlanta, Georgia. It is a subsidiary of Turner Broadcasting System, Inc., established in 1980 for running a news channel in English under the brand CNN, with the logo. The device mark stands registered, in favour of the plaintiff, under Classes:
(ii) 16, for “printed matter; books, program guides, program transcripts, photographs; stationery; instructional; and teaching materials (except apparatus); playing cards”, w.e.f. 31st December 1991,
(iii) 38, for “telecommunication services, in particular broadcasting and transmission of radio and television programs, of sound and images and information, also via wire, cable, satellite, radio, global or other computer network and similar technical equipment telecommunications of information (including webpages), computer programs and any other data; electronic mail services; providing user access to the Internet (service providers); providing telecommunications connections to the Internet or databases : telecommunication gateway services; online retail services (e-commerce); collection and supply of news, messages and information; agency for press and non-commercial information”, w.e.f. 23rd February, 2004 and
(iv) 41, for “education services; entertainment services particularly television programming, online entertainment and information services, radio and television entertainment, production, reproduction, projecting and rental of motion pictures and videos, production and reproduction of audio and video recordings on audio and/or video carriers of different kind projecting and rental of these video and/or audio carriers, production and arrangement of radio and television programs, information relating to entertainment or education provided online from a computer database or the Internet; providing online electronic publications (not downloadable)”, w.e.f. 23rd February 2004.
3. The plaintiff asserts that all its services are made available to the public under the logo.
4. The defendant also provides news broadcasting services under the name CALCUTTA NEWS, through its Satellite TV channel, and has been licensed for provid
Jurisdiction in trade mark cases arises where cause of action occurs, including digital accessibility, not solely based on physical business locations.
The central legal point established is that for territorial jurisdiction under Section 134(2) of the Trade Marks Act, the plaintiff's principal place of business and the cause of action are determina....
Jurisdiction in internet-based disputes is established through interactivity and accessibility of the Defendant's website, creating potential consumer confusion.
The jurisdiction of the Commercial Court can be established through online businesses actively targeting customers within that jurisdiction, regardless of where the business is physically located.
The main legal point established is that the invocation of territorial jurisdiction under specific provisions of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and the CPC must be analyzed based on the facts and document....
The court underscored that registered trademarks must be protected against confusingly similar uses, emphasizing jurisdiction based on e-commerce presence.
A part of the cause of action can arise in a court's jurisdiction even if services are provided online, contingent on the nature of the services advertised.
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
