$~1

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Reserved on: 13^th May, 2022

Date of decision: 7^th July, 2022

+

CS(COMM) 144/2022 & I.A. 3585/2022

BRIGHT LIFECARE PVT. LTD.

..... Plaintiff

Through:

Mr. Vikas Khera, Mr. Ved Prakash,

Ms.

Vishal

Sharan,

Advocates

(M:7834897828)

versus

VINI COSMETICS PVT. LTD. & ANR.

..... Defendants

Through:

Mr. Chander Lall, Sr. Advocate with

Mr. Anish Chawla, Ms. Ananya

Chugh Mr. Bhav Arora, Advocates

for D-1 (M:9953541910)

CORAM:

JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH

JUDGMENT

Prathiba M. Singh, J.

1. The question before the Court in the present matter is- can an

advertising campaign and its various elements be protected under

intellectual property law? If so, in what manner?

2. The Plaintiff- Bright Lifecare Pvt. Ltd. is a company engaged in the

business of manufacturing and trading of health supplements, nutraceuticals

and food products. It has filed the present suit claiming infringement of its

various rights under the laws of copyright, trademarks, passing off, etc. One

of the products of the Plaintiff is a protein supplement which is sold in a

series of products under the MuscleBlaze (MB) trademark. Defendant No.1

is a company involved in the business of manufacturing and merchandising

of pharmaceuticals, ayurvedic and cosmetic products under the house mark

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/002479

‘VINI’. Defendant No.1 claims to have a strong presence in the deodorant

and perfume segment in the Indian market. Some of its brands are FOGG,

OSSUM, and WHITETONE. Defendant No.2 has been impleaded as it

owns, maintains and runs www.youtube.com which is an online video

streaming platform on which Defendant No.1’s advertisements are aired,

that allegedly infringe the rights of the Plaintiff.

3. The Plaintiff’s case is that in March of 2018 it started an advertising

campaign in the form of a video titled “ZIDDI HOON MAIN” on various

online platforms including YouTube etc. The said video was followed by

another video in Tamil on 4^th April, 2018. Similarly, further videos were

released in May, 2018 and November, 2018. The videos released by the

Plaintiff used various forms of the words ‘ZIDD’ and ‘ZIDDI’ to describe a

quality of persons who do not give up despite various challenges. The said

advertising videos which are available for viewing on YouTube have

attracted crores of views. Some of the videos have attracted more than 1-2

crore views. The trademark ‘ZIDD’ and slogans consisting of the mark

`ZIDDI’, in various variants and marks associated therewith are also

registered in various classes. ‘ZIDDI’ marks and slogans used by the

Plaintiff are- ‘ZIDDIS DON’T WAIT’, ‘ZIDDI HOON MAIN’, ‘ZIDD

WARS’, ‘NAAM HAI ZIDDI’, ‘PHIR SE ZIDD KAR’.

4.

In January, 2022, the Plaintiff came across advertisements of a

deodorant product named ‘REALMAN’ of Defendant No.1 which, as per

the Plaintiff, were conceptually, visually similar to the Plaintiff’s

advertisements. It is also the case of the Plaintiff that for the said

advertisement campaign, Defendant No.1 has adopted the mark/tagline

‘ZIDDI PERFUME’ which is deceptively similar to the mark of the

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/002479

Plaintiff. It is the case of the Plaintiff that by the impugned adoption and use

of similar scenes in the advertisements and the mark ‘ZIDDI PERFUME’,

Defendant No.1 has infringed the trade mark rights of the Plaintiff and also

infringed the copyright involved in the cinematograph works. To prove

similarity between the advertisements of the Plaintiff and Defendant No.1,

the Plaintiff has put forth a comparative chart in the plaint showing identical

scenes from Plaintiff and Defendant No.1’s advertisements to argue that the

commercials of Defendant No.1 infringe the rights of the Plaintiff.

Theme of Plaintiff’s Commercials/Advertisements

5. There are four commercials which a