IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Prathiba M. Singh, J.
Living Media India Limited & Anr. - Appellants
Versus
Www. News-aajtak. Co. In & Ors. - Respondents
CS(COMM) 395 of 2020, I.As. 8516 of 2020 & 3065 of 2021
Decided On : 20-11-2023
AAJ TAK - Trademark Infringement - [Order dated 24th September, 2020, order dated 6th September, 2021, order dated 17th September, 2021] - The court decreed the suit against the Defendants, permanently restraining them from using the mark 'AAJ TAK' or any deceptively similar mark for media, news, entertainment, or similar services. The DNRs/platforms were directed to keep the infringing accounts disabled.
Fact of the Case:
The suit pertains to the infringement of the mark 'AAJ TAK' across various domain names and online platforms. The Plaintiff obtained an ex-parte injunction against the use of specific domain names, and subsequently, additional domain names were included in the injunction.
Finding of the Court:
The court decreed the suit against the Defendants, permanently restraining them from using the mark 'AAJ TAK' or any deceptively similar mark for media, news, entertainment, or similar services. The DNRs/platforms were directed to keep the infringing accounts disabled.
Issues: Trademark infringement, domain name misuse, injunction enforcement, DNRs' responsibilities
Ratio Decidendi: The court found in favor of the Plaintiff due to the repeated protection of the mark 'AAJ TAK' in various proceedings and the infringing use of the mark across multiple domain names and online platforms. The court emphasized the permanent restraint on the Defendants from using the mark or any deceptively similar mark and directed the DNRs/platforms to keep the infringing accounts disabled.
Final Decision: The suit was decreed in favor of the Plaintiff, and the Defendants were permanently restrained from using the mark 'AAJ TAK' or any deceptively similar mark for media, news, entertainment, or similar services. The DNRs/platforms were directed to keep the infringing accounts disabled. The pending application under Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC was disposed of.
JUDGMENT
Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
2. The present suit relates to various domain names and other online media usage of the mark `AAJ TAK', `AB TAK' and various other similar marks/names to that of the Plaintiff's mark/name `AAJ TAK'.
3. The mark `AAJ TAK' has been repeatedly protected in various proceedings. In the present suit, vide order dated 24th September, 2020, an ex-parte injunction was granted against the use of the domain names www.news- aajtak.co.in, www.aajtaknewsdaily.com, www.newsaajtaklive.com and www.aajtakreport.com.
4. Further domain names were also included and the injunction order dated 24th September, 2020 was also extended to the said domain names vide order dated 6th September, 2021 read with order dated 17th September, 2021.
5. The Plaintiffs have also impleaded numerous Domain Name Registrars (DNRs) and other platforms where the infringing use of the name `AAJ TAK', including its content, was observed. During the pendency of this suit, all the domain names and other instances of infringing use of the Plaintiffs' mark at the following links has been either removed or disabled. A complete status report dated 20th November 2023 as handed over by the ld. Counsel for the Plaintiffs is set out below:
| S. No. | Defendant No. | Infringing website/profile/channel. | Screenshots from weblinks Updated status as on 20.11.2023 | Status |
| 1. | Defendant No. 1 | NewsAajTak | www.news-aajtak.co.in | Website, Twitter and Facebook profile disabled. |
| 2. | Defendant No. 2 | AAJTAK NEWS DAILY | www.aajtaknewsdaily.com | Website disabled. |
| 3. | Defendant No. 4 | Newsaajtaklive | www.newsaajtaklive.com | Website and YouTube channel disabled. |
| - YouTube channel | Facebook profile now disabled. | |||
| 4. | Defendant No. 6 | Aaj Tak Report | www.aajtakreport.com | Website, Facebook profile and Instagram profile disabled. |
| - Facebook profile | ||||
| https://www.instagram.com/aajtakreport/ | ||||
| 5. | Defendant No. 9 | Aaj Tak Live | www.aajtaklive.in | Website disabled. |
| Domain first registered with Def.3 (GoDaddy) and now registered with Def.16 (Hosting Concepts B.V.) | ||||
| 6. | 10 | Aaj Tak India News | www.aajtakindianews.com | Website, Facebook Profile and YouTube channel disabled. |
| 7. | 11 | E Aaj Tak | www.eaajtak.com | Domain name seems inactive. Website can't be reached. |
| 8. | Defendant No. 12 | Zulm aajtak | https://www.zulmaajtak.page/ | Website, Facebook profile and YouTube channel disabled. |
| 9. | Defendant No. 14 | Aaj Tak Hind | www.aajtakhind.com | Website and Instagram profile disabled. |
| - Twitter profile | Twitter profile active. | |||
| 10. | Defendant No. 15 | Aaj Tak org. | https://aajtak.org.in/ | Access to website denied. |
| 11. | Defendant No. 17 | Aa | ||
The central legal point established in the judgment is the permanent restraint on the Defendants from using the mark 'AAJ TAK' or any deceptively similar mark for media, news, entertainment, or simil....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the protection of well-established trademarks and the grant of ad-interim injunction against infringement on online platforms.
The court held that a well-known trademark, like `TATA`, is entitled to protection against any unauthorized use that may deceive the public, confirming jurisdiction over foreign entities where online....
In trademark infringement cases, courts cannot grant broad injunctions without identifying specific infringing domains; reliefs must target clearly defined trademarks as per Sections 28(1) and 29 of ....
The court emphasized the importance of strictly abiding by the injunction order and not extending it to any other domain names not covered by the order.
The judgment establishes the importance of protecting intellectual property rights, territorial jurisdiction in infringement cases, and the enforcement of injunction orders through ICANN regulations.
A court may grant an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in a trademark infringement suit where the plaintiff establishes a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and the likelihood of irreparable inju....
The court affirmed the plaintiffs' rights against infringement and passing off, validating their trademarks through established goodwill and allowing for summary judgment due to the defendant's non-a....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the protection of well-known trademarks from infringement and passing off under the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the protection of intellectual property rights, including trademarks and copyrighted materials, under the Indian Copyright Act, 1957 and the Ind....
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.