Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 21

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Tejas Karia, J
LIVING MEDIA INDIA LIMITED – Appellant
Versus
ZEE MEDIA CORPORATION LIMITED – Respondent
CS(COMM) 826/2025

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners:Mr. Asheesh Jain, Senior Advocate, Mr. Shahrukh Ejaz, Ms. Musakan Sehgal
For the Respondents: Mr. Rahul Vidhani, Ms. Neha Vidhani, Mr. Dhruv Sikka, Ms. Mokshita Gautam, Mr. S. Kumar, Ms. Yashika Sehgal, Mr. Lakshay Gupta, Ms. Shreya Jain

The court established that while 'DUNIYADARI' is suggestive and not descriptive, it is widely used across media, affecting exclusivity rights.

Headnote:(A) Trade Marks Act, 1999 - Sections 29 and 30 - Copyright Act, 1957 - Infringement of Trade Mark - The plaintiff sought an injunction against the defendant alleging infringement and passing off regarding the trade mark 'DUNIYADARI' for their news program, claiming it had acquired distinctiveness. The court found the mark as not descriptive but suggestive, acknowledging that 'DUNIYADARI' is common terminology across multiple media and does not have exclusivity. The defendant was restrained from using a deceptively similar mark, however, they could use 'DUNIYADARI' in a non-similar manner. (Paras 33-34)

(B) Distinctiveness of Marks - The court assessed whether the plaintiff's and defendant's marks were likely to cause confusion among viewers. It was concluded that the similarities between the marks and the services offered could mislead the public regarding their source. (Paras 9, 32)

(C) Prior Use - Defendant claimed a prior usage of 'DUNIYADARI' in various formats, which was contested by the plaintiff, arguing distinct prior adoption and use by them. (Paras 22-23)

(D) Common Terms - The court recognized that while 'DUNIYADARI' is used in various media contexts, it does not allow for exclusivity by one entity. (Paras 15-16)

Table of Content
1. application for injunction filed by plaintiff. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. plaintiff claims distinctiveness and popularity of 'duniyadari'. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7)
3. consideration of distinctiveness and descriptiveness of trademark. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16)
4. trademark cannot be monopolized if generic or descriptive. (Para 18 , 21 , 22 , 23)
5. prior user rights and the significance of distinctiveness. (Para 25 , 26 , 27 , 29)
6. defendant can use 'duniyadari' but not deceptively similar. (Para 32 , 33 , 34 , 35)

JUDGMENT

TEJAS KARIA, JIA No.19596/2025 (u/O XXXIX Rules 1&2 CPC)

1. This is an Application filed by the Plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”), inter alia, seeking the following prayers:

“A. Pass an order granting ex-parte ad-interim injunction in

favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendant thereby restraining the Defendant, its employees, servants, agents, assigns, officials, etc. from infringing the Registered Trade

Marks “DUNIYADARI”/ “ ” in any manner whatsoever in relation to any goods and/or services on any platform including its website available at https://zeenews.india.com/hindi/zeephh and YouTube channel, Meta handle or any such digital platform being operated by the Defendant and any other location on the internet or through any other mode or medium, whether online or offline, which amounts to infringement of Plaintiffs Registered Trade Mark; and B. Pass an order granting ex parte ad-interim injunction in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendant thereby restraining the Defendant, its employees, servants, agents, assigns, officials, etc. from passing off the Trade Marks

“DUNIYADARI”/ “ ” in any manner whatsoever in relation to any goods and/or services on any platform including its website available at https://zeenews.india.com/hindi/zeephh and YouTube channel, Meta handle or any such digital platform being operated by the Defendant and any other location on the internet or any other mode or medium, whether online or offline which amounts to passing off of Plaintiff’s Trade Mark; and C. Pass an order granting ex parte ad-interim injunction in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendant restraining the Defendant, its employees, servants, agents, assigns, officials etc. from broadcasting news or content of any nature under the Registered Trade Mark “DUNIYADARI”/

“ ”and otherwise using the Plaintiff’s Registered Trade Marks “DUNIYADARI”/

“ ”and/or any other marks which are identical/deceptively similar to the Plaintiffs Trade Mark in any manner whatsoever in relation to any goods and/or services on any platform including website available at https://zeenews.india.com/hindi/zeephh and YouTube channel, Meta handle or any such digital platform being operated by the Defendant and any other location on the internet or through any other mode or medium, whether online or offline, which amounts to passing off and infringement of the Plaintiff's Registered Trade Mark; and D. Pass an order granting ex parte ad-interim injunction in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendant while restraining the Defendant, its employees, servants, agents, assigns, officials etc. from reproducing, publishing, copying or in any manner using the original artistic works of the

Plaintiff's Registered Trade Mark “ ” in any manner whatsoever in relation to any goods and/or services on any platform including website available at https://zeenews.india.com/hindi/zeephh and YouTube channel, Facebook handle or any such digital platform being operated by the Defendant and any other location on the internet or through any other mode or medium, whether online or offline, which amounts to copyright infringement of the Plaintiffs original artistic work in the Plaintiff's Registered Trade Mark; and E. Pass an order granting ex parte ad-interim injunction in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendant thereby directing the Defend