Delhi High Court
Dish Tv India Ltd vs Prasar Bharti on 16 July, 2019
Author: Rajiv Sahai Endlaw
Bench: Rajiv Sahai Endlaw
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: 16th July, 2019.
+ CS(COMM) 347/2016
DISH TV INDIA LTD. ..... Plaintiff
Through: Mr. Sandeep Sethi, Sr. Adv. with
Ms. Nupur Lamba and Ms. Sonal
Chhablani, Advs.
Versus
PRASAR BHARTI .....Defendant
Through: Mr. Rajeev Sharma, Ms.
Radhalakshmi R., Mr. T. Rajat
Krishna and Mr. Saket Chandra,
Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
IA No.20187/2014 (of plaintiff u/O XXXIX R-1&2 CPC)
1. The plaintiff has instituted this suit for permanent injunction
restraining the defendant from infringing the trade mark „DISHTV‟ of the
plaintiff and from passing off the defendant‟s services as that of the plaintiff
by adoption of the name / mark „FREE DISH‟ and for ancillary reliefs.
2. The suit came up first before this Court on 15 th October, 2014, when
the counsel for the defendant appeared on advance notice. Summons of the
suit and notice of the application for interim relief were issued and the
counsel for the defendant directed to take instructions, whether the
defendant was agreeable to an amicable settlement. Pleadings were
completed and no mention is found in any of the subsequent orders of any
CS(COMM) 347/2016 Page 1 of 17
attempts at amicable settlement being made. On completion of pleadings,
issues in the suit were also struck on 26th August, 2016 but the application
of the plaintiff for interim relief remained to be heard, on most dates owing
to non-availability of the counsel for the defendant. In spite of issues
having been framed nearly three years back, recording of evidence is still at
an initial stage, with PW-1 having been only partly examined-in-chief as
yet.
3. The counsels were heard on 13th November, 2018. After I made my
mind clear to the counsel for the defendant, the counsel for the defendant
stated that he needed to cite case law and sought adjournment. The hearing
was again adjourned from time to time and the counsel for the defendant
was further heard only on 16th November, 2018 and the hearing concluded
on 22nd November, 2018 and orders reserved.
4. It is the case of the plaintiff Dish TV India Limited, (i) that the
plaintiff is engaged in the business of providing Direct To Home (DTH)
services within the purview of the Interconnection (Broadcasting & Cable
Services) Regulations framed by the Telecom Regulatory Authority of
India (TRAI); (ii) that the plaintiff was earlier known as ASC Enterprises
Ltd. and which was changed to the present name Dish TV India Limited
with effect from 7th March, 2007; (iii) that the plaintiff has a subscriber base
of more than 16 million, with capacity of more than 400 channels and
movies on demand; (iv) that the plaintiff, since 2003, has been providing
DTH services under the brand name „DISHTV‟; (v) that the plaintiff is the
original coiner, first adopter and prior user of the trade mark / corporate
name „DISHTV‟; (vi) that the word/mark „DISH‟ is an integral and
CS(COMM) 347/2016 Page 2 of 17
distinctive element / feature of plaintiff‟s trade mark / trade name; (vii) that
plaintiff has used the word „DISH‟ as its leading and main mark and offered
services such as dish+, Dish TruDH+, dishonline, dishflix, dish active, dish
dvr etc.; (viii) that the plaintiff is the registered proprietor of the corporate
name / trade mark / logo „DISHTV‟ in numerous variants in Classes 9, 38,
16, 35, 42 and 41 with the first registration dating back to 15th July, 2003;
(ix) that a large number of applications for registration of other marks /
logos also with the word „DISH‟ are pending consideration; (x) that the
corporate name / trade mark / logo „DISHTV‟ is also protected under the
Copyright Act, 1957; (xi) that the plaintiff also has a website in the name of
www.dishtv.in and „DISH‟ is also an integral part of as many as 24 domain
names registered in the name of plaintiff viz. dish.co.in, dish.net.in, dishtv-
india.gen.in, dish.firm.in, dish.ind.in etc.; (xii) that the defendant Prasar
Bharti is a public broadcaster and is also known as „Doordarshan‟; (xiii)
that the defendant, in May, 2014 renamed its Free to Air DTH service „DD
Direct+‟ to „FREE DISH‟; (xiv) that the defendant is bound to know about
the plaintiff‟s well-known and registered mark, corporate name as well as
its activities, being engaged in identical service; (xv) that the defendant has
also adopted a logo which is deceptively similar to that of the plaintiff‟s
inasmuch as the defendant‟s stylized logo contains the device of a dish
which is also an integral and prominent part of the plaintiff‟s „DISHTV‟
logo; (xvi) that the defendant failed to desist in spite of cease and desist
notice got issued in May, 2014; (xvii) that the defendant had also filed a
trade mark application in Class 41 for the mark „FREE DISH‟; (xviii) that
the defendant is also misrepresenting „FREE DISH‟ to be a registered trade
mark on its website www.ddindia.gov.in; (xix) that „FREE DISH‟ adopted
CS(COMM) 347/2016 Page 3 of 17
by the defendant infringes the plaintiff‟s mark „DISHTV‟ as well as
copyright therein; and, (xx) that the defendant, by adopting „FREE DISH‟,
is passing off its services as that of the plaintiff.
5. The defendant has contested the suit pleading, (a) that there is no
similarity between „DD Free Dish‟ and „DISHTV‟ and there is no
possibility of anyone being misled; (b) that „DISH‟ is a generic word used
to describe equipment which receives the satellite signals; (c) that every
DTH platform requires a Dish Antenna for receiving its signals; (d) that
„DISH‟ is publici juris and no one can claim exclusive right thereto; (e) that
the term „DISH‟ is not distinctive in nature and none can claim exclusive
right to use thereof; (f) that „DD Free Dish‟ is the only free to air DTH
platform in the country; (g) that while a subscriber to the DTH platform of
the plaintiff is required to make a periodical payment to the plaintiff, no
such payment is required to be made to the defendant and all that is
required is the installation of a Dish Antenna and set top box for receiving
the signals; (h) that the plaintiff does not have any right in law to the
exclusive use of the word „DISH‟; (i) that the possibility of deception or
confusion is nil, since there is no similarity whatsoever, whether phonetic
or visual between the marks „DISHTV‟ and „DD Free Dish‟; (j) that while a
customer wishing to subscribe to the DTH platform of the plaintiff would
have to enter into an agreement, pay the price for the Dish Antenna to be
installed and make periodic payments; a customer tuning into the DTH
platform of the defendant would only have to purchase an appropriate set
top box and a Dish Antenna from the market and would not have to enter
into any agreement with the defendant or anyone else and would not have
CS(COMM) 347/2016 Page 4 of 17
to make any periodic payments to the defendant or anyone else; (k) that a
customer who wishes to subscribe to the DTH platform of the plaintiff,
would never settle for the product of the defendant; (l) that the plaintiff
itself claims its DTH service is superior to that of the defendant; (m) that
when two rival marks contain features that are not only descriptive but also
publici juris, the consumer will tend to ignore the common features and will
pay more attention to the uncommon features; (n) that under Section 17 of
the Trade Marks Act, 1999, registration of a trade mark confers rights in the
mark as a whole and not in part or fragments of the mark; the plaintiff
having chosen to brand its product with a generic word, „DISH‟, any other
person entering the market would have the right to use the said term to
identify the product in question and the plaintiff if had not desired so, ought
to have branded its product with a unique name; (o) that the defendant, in
line with its statutory obligation, is providing a DTH platform which can be
availed of without any payment and for this reason named it „DD Free
Dish‟; (p) that the said mark / logo is not even remotely similar to the
plaintiff‟s mark / logo „DISHTV‟; and, (q) that a Dish Antenna is an
equipment, which is in use by every person in the broadcasting industry and
each of such persons has the right to use the image of a dish.
6. The plaintiff, in its replication has inter alia pleaded, (I) that from the
factum of the defendant operating its DTH platform since the year 2004
under the mark „DD Direct+‟ and in January, 2014 changing its mark „DD
Direct+‟ to „DD Free Dish‟, the motive to benefit from the reputation and
goodwill of the plaintiff and to create confusion, is writ large; (II) the
adoption by the defendant of the impugned mark, for identical services,
CS(COMM) 347/2016 Page 5 of 17
establishes the mala fide intention of the defendant; (III) the defendant has
also adopted the stylization of the mark of the plaintiff; (IV) due to a close
proximity of the satellites carrying „DD Direct+‟ with the satellite carrying
„DISHTV‟, it results in a situation wherein the recipients unavoidably
receive the free to air signal of „DD Direct+‟ by the Dish Antenna of Dish
TV; the same also leads to the broadcast of the Dish TV containing the „DD
Direct+‟ logo alongside the „DISHTV‟ logo, resulting in confusion; (V)
resultantly, the broadcast of „DISHTV‟ also contains the logo of „FREE
DISH‟, thereby leading to immense confusion amongst customers as well
as general public vis-a-vis trade association between the plaintiff and
defendant; (VI) in spite of the said confusion persisting, the defendant
chose to adopt a trade mark deceptively and confusingly similar to the
plaintiff‟s trade mark; (VII) the defendant having itself applied for
registration of the mark „FREE DISH‟ vide Trade Mark Application
No.2592320 in Class 41, is estopped from contending „DISH‟ to be generic,
non-distinctive or publici juris; and, (VIII) the plaintiff was the first in India
to adopt and use the word „DISH‟ as part of its trade mark / name in
relation to DTH services and the said mark is exclusively associated with
the plaintiff.
7. After part hearing on 12th April, 2017 on this application of interim
relief, the defendant filed an additional affidavit dated 14 th September, 2017
explaining the position with respect to proximity of satellite of the
defendant with the satellite of the plaintiff. In the said affidavit, it has been
explained that today it is not possible for the Dish of „DISHTV‟ to receive
signals of „DD Direct+‟ (now known as „DD Free Dish‟) because all
CS(COMM) 347/2016 Page 6 of 17
contents provided to subscribers of private Dish TV platforms, irrespective
of source, has to pass through encryption and conditional access system,
resulting in the signals of every channel carried on the private DTH
platform being available to subscribers of that private Dish TV platform
only and private Dish TV platforms are mandatorily required to carry
specified Doordarshan channels. The signals and logo of „DD Free Dish‟
appear because „DISHTV‟ allows them to appear for its commercial
consideration.
8. The senior counsel for the plaintiff has argued:
(A) that the defendant has adopted the most prominent part of the
plaintiff‟s mark for identical services; reliance in this regard is place
on United Biotech Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Orchid Chemicals &
Pharmaceuticals Ltd. 2012 (50) PTC 433 (Del) (DB), Laxmikant V.
Patel Vs. Chetanbhat Shah 2002 (24) PTC 1 (SC) and Himalaya
Drug Company Vs. S.B.L. Limited 2013 (53) PTC 1 (Del) (DB);
(B) that though the defendant was earlier claiming „FREE DISH‟
to be a registered trade mark, but after the institution of the present
suit has stopped claiming so;
(C) reliance is placed on Automatic Electric Limited Vs. R.K.
Dhawan (1999) 19 PTC 81 (Del) and Procter & Gamble
Manufacturing (Tianjin) Co. Ltd. Vs. Anchor Health & Beauty
Care Pvt. Ltd. (2014) 211 DLT 466 (DB) to contend that the plea, of
„DISH‟ being generic or publici juris, is not available to the
defendant, which itself has sought registration thereof;
CS(COMM) 347/2016 Page 7 of 17
(D) reliance is placed on Midas Hygiene Industries P. Ltd. Vs.
Sudhir Bhatia 2004 (28) PTC 121 (SC) to contend that in the
absence of any explanation by the defendant for the reason for
change from „DD Direct+‟ to „DD Free Dish‟, mala fides of the
defendant are evident;
(E) that the Registrar of Trade Marks, by granting registration to
the trade marks of the plaintiff, has considered them capable of
distinguishing the goods / services of the plaintiff;
(F) that the test applied in Ramdev Food Products (P) Ltd. Vs.
Arvindbhai Rambhai Patel (2006) 8 SCC 726 and United Biotech
Pvt. Ltd. supra is of the essential features of the mark;
(G) that on the aspect of generic / publici juris, attention is invited
to Time Warner Entertainment Company, L.P. Vs. A.K. Das 1997
(17) PTC 453 (Del), qua Home Box Office and on Info Edge (India)
Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Shailesh Gupta 2002 (24) PTC 355 (Del), qua
Naukri.com;
(H) reliance is placed on Baker Hughes Limited Vs. Hiroo
Khushalani (1998) 74 DLT 715, laying down that the mere fact that
the customers are sophisticated, knowledgeable and discriminating,
does not rule out the element of confusion and to contend that the test
of confusion is of initial confusion; and,
(I) reliance is placed on Bhole Baba Milk Food Industries Ltd.
Vs. Parul Food Specialities Pvt. Ltd. (2012) 186 DLT 234 (DB) to
CS(COMM) 347/2016 Page 8 of 17
contend that whether a common word such as „DISH‟ has acquired
secondary distinctiveness is primarily a question of fact.
9. Per contra, the counsel for the defendant has argued:
(i) that the difference of paid and free and the difference in
subscriber base, distinguishes the services of the plaintiff and the
services of the defendant;
(ii) that there is another registration with „DISH‟, relating to
telecast services (however, it is admitted that the same is not
telecasting in India);
(iii) that the judgments holding that a person who has himself
applied for registration of the same mark is estopped from
contending the mark to be generic, have not considered that there can
be no estoppel against the statute; reliance is placed on Hi-Tech
Pipes Ltd. Vs. Asian Mills Pvt. Ltd. (2006) 32 PTC 192;
(iv) that the test of similarity / deceptive similarity, to be adopted,
is as laid down in Gufic Ltd. Vs. Clinique Laboratories, LLC 2010
(43) PTC 788 (Del);
(v) that „DD‟ refers to „Doordarshan‟; free indicates that the
service is available free of charge; „DISH‟ indicates that the Direct to
Home service is free;
(vi) that the mark „DD Free Dish‟ is not similar or deceptively
similar to „DISHTV‟;
(vii) reliance is placed on Rhizome Distilleries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Pernod
Ricard S.A. France 2009 SCC OnLine Del 3346 to contend that if
CS(COMM) 347/2016 Page 9 of 17
words of common parlance are used, exclusivity cannot be claimed
and that the use of a prefix would invariably result in distinguishing
the rival products;
(viii) that no commercial gain accrues to the defendant from use of
the word „DISH‟;
(ix) that the mode and manner of use of the two DTH platforms
shows that there can be no possibility of confusion;
(x) that difference in pricing and the class of people using the
services is also the test to be applied; reliance is again placed on
Gufic Ltd. supra;
(xi) that the plaintiff has no separate registration of the word
„DISH‟ and has registration of the mark „DISHTV‟ and cannot claim
exclusive right to „DISH‟; reliance is placed on Carlsberg India Pvt.
Ltd. vs. Radico Khaitan Ltd. 2012 (49) PTC 54 (Del);
(xii) that without establishing by evidence, it cannot be claimed that
the mark „DISHTV‟ has achieved distinctiveness or secondary
meaning; reliance is placed on Rich Products Corporation Vs. Indo
Nippon Food Ltd. 2010 SCC OnLine Del 734 (DB) and Bhole Baba
Milk Food Industries Ltd. Vs. Parul Food Specialities (P) Ltd. 2011
SCC OnLine Del 288;
(xiii) that recording of evidence has already commenced and there is
no need for any interim order; and,
(xiv) that „DD Free Dish‟ service provides 80 channels to
subscribers, without any payment or charge whatsoever and it is
CS(COMM) 347/2016 Page 10 of 17
targeted towards rural households and has about 30 million
subscribers and any change in the name of the defendant‟s DTH
service would create confusion in the minds of the rural masses.
10. I have considered the rival contentions.
11. The main thrust of the defendant is, on the word „DISH‟ being
generic and/or publici juris and/or common to the trade and the plaintiff,
therefore, notwithstanding holding a registered mark, being not entitled to
prevent the defendant from use thereof. The said defence is based on
Section 9 of the Trade Marks Act titled "Absolute Grounds for Refusal of
Registration", which prescribes that trade marks which are devoid of any
distinctive character and incapable of distinguishing the good or services of
one person from those of another person and which consist exclusively of
marks or indications which serve in trade to designate the kind, quality of
the service or which have become customary in the language practiced in
the trade, shall not be registered.
12. However, the fact remains that the mark „DISHTV‟, notwithstanding
the said provision, stands registered, as of today, for the last 16 years and
none objected to registration thereof or has till date sought removal of the
registration. The defendant also, though has chosen to use the word „DISH‟
as a part of its mark and though having commenced such use since the year
2004 has in the last 5 years, not bothered to seek removal of registration of
the plaintiff‟s mark. The question which arises is, whether the defendant,
having chosen not to do so, when sued for infringement, is entitled to
defend the claim for infringement on such grounds.
CS(COMM) 347/2016 Page 11 of 17
13. This Court is not empowered to remove the mark from the register
and the power to do the same vests exclusively in the Registrar of Trade
Marks or in the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB), under
Section 47 of the Trade Marks Act.
14. On the contrary, vide Section 31 of the Trade Marks Act, in this
proceeding, registration of the mark is prima facie evidence of the validity
thereof.
15. Though Section 31 uses the word „prima facie‟, but owing to Section
47 of the Trade Marks Act vesting jurisdiction to determine validity, only in
the Registrar or IPAB, the occasion for this Court to render a final view in
this regard never arises.
16. Section 124 of the Trade Marks Act provides for stay of proceedings
in the suit for infringement where the validity of registration is questioned.
While so staying the proceedings, the Court is required to take a prima facie
view on the plea of validity. The defendant however has not applied
thereunder also, for this Court to take a prima facie view on the validity of
the mark.
17. The conclusion therefore at this stage is that the plea raised by the
defendant, of the word „DISH‟ being publici juris and/or generic or
common to the trade, is of no avail.
18. Section 30(2) of the Trade Marks Act however provides that a
registered trade mark is not infringed where use thereof in relation to
services indicates the kind or intended purpose of the service or other
characteristics of service. The only question to be considered thus is
CS(COMM) 347/2016 Page 12 of 17
whether use by the defendant of „DISH‟ as part of its mark is intended to
indicate the kind and/or purpose of the service being provided by the
defendant.
19. The defendant has not even pleaded so. Rather, the defendant has
admitted that from the year 2004 till the year 2014, it was marketing the
same service under the name DD Direct+. It is also not the case of the
defendant that only the plaintiff and the defendant and none other is
providing the said service. The defendant also does not state that owing to
the word „DISH‟ being generic or publici juris, others providing the said
service are also using the said word or are necessarily required to use the said word.
20. When the defendant itself was able to provide the said service
without using the word „DISH‟ from 2004 to 2014 and when others also are
providing the same services as the plaintiff and the defendant, without using
the word „DISH‟, it is not open to the defendant to say that the use of the
word „DISH‟ by the defendant is indicative of the kind or characteristic of
services being rendered by the defendant. Thus, none of the defences under
Section 30 of the Trade Marks Act are available to the defendant.
21. „Dish‟ is a word in the English language, classified as a noun and
meaning, "a shallow, flat bottomed container for cooking or serving food"
or "a shallow, conclave receptacle, especially one intended to hold a
particular substance". A "satellite dish is a dish shaped type of parabolic
antenna designed to receive or transmit information by radio waves to or
from a communication satellite". A "Dish Antenna" is described as
"common in microwave systems used for satellite communication and
broadcast reception, space communications, radio astronomy and radar".
"Direct to Home (DTH)" technology enables a broadcasting company to
directly beam the signal to the television set through a receiver that is
CS(COMM) 347/2016 Page 13 of 17
installed in the house, without any need for a cable connection. DTH
broadcasting service refers to the distribution of multichannel TV
programme in Ku Band, by using a satellite system by providing TV signals
direct to subscribers premises; for DTH connection, the broadcasting
company provides a set that comprises a "dish and a receiving set"; the
company beams an encrypted signal that only the set installed in a
subscribers house can receive and enable viewing. My readings on the
subject show that the dish shape is pretty much irrelevant inasmuch as it is
merely a reflector and lens to focus on the signal. The vital part is the Low
Noise Block downconverter (LNB) i.e. the equipment mounted on the front
of the dish, which transmits the signal to the set top box or the receiver.
What thus emerges is that (a) it is not as if „Dish‟ or „Dish Antenna‟ is
confined to DTH service; as aforesaid, it is common to all satellite
communications and broadcasts; and, (b) „Dish‟ or „Dish Antenna‟ is not
essential to DTH service; what is essential is the LNB and the set top box;
„dish‟ only serves the purpose of focusing the signal on LNB and which can
be achieved by other means also, without the „Dish‟. This explains why the
defendant, as aforesaid, has not pleaded so. What follows is, that „Dish‟ is
not generic to DTH service or publici juris and/or common to the trade of
DTH service for it to be said that adoption thereof by plaintiff for its DTH
services cannot prevent the others providing same service from using the
same for the reason of its being essential for them for describing their
service. „Dish‟ may be generic to the business of cooked food or utensils,
but certainly not to providing television service.
22. The only other ground of challenge is that the comparison has to be
between the marks „DISHTV‟ and „DD FREE DISH‟ and that the said
comparison does not pass the test of infringement.
CS(COMM) 347/2016 Page 14 of 17
23. However, the said contention is contrary to United Biotech Pvt. Ltd.,
Laxmikant V. Patel and Himalaya Drug Company supra cited by the
senior counsel for the plaintiff, in all of which the test applied was of use by
the defendant of a prominent part of the plaintiff‟s registered trade mark
and applying which test, a clear case of infringement is made out.
However, considering the stage of the suit, I must add prima facie.
24. The only other part of the plaintiff‟s mark, besides „DISH‟, is „TV‟
and which is indeed incapable of distinguishing. Even though the
defendant‟s mark has the word „DD‟ and which indeed is associated by all
concerned with Doordarshan, but considering the complex public private
partnerships / ventures and different business modules prevalent today, it
cannot be said that the same is incapable of breaking the connection or
identity which is bound to be formed in the minds of a consumers /
subscribers or public at large, finding the word „DISH‟ being used by the
defendant for the service which was earlier called „DD Direct+‟ by the
defendant. It is well-nigh possible for the consumers / subscribers to form
an opinion that the plaintiff, in association with Doordarshan, is providing
certain free channels also and may result in the consumers / subscribers
wanting the paid channels of the plaintiff also to be telecast free. There can
be similar other myriad opinions which can be formed because of such
association. The entire law of trade marks is to prevent the same from
happening and once the possibility of such opinions / impressions being
formed is found to exist, the law has to intervene and stop infringement.
25. The elements of irreparable injury and balance of convenience are
implicit.
CS(COMM) 347/2016 Page 15 of 17
26. Though the counsel for the defendant has also contended that the
recording of evidence having begun, interim order should not be passed at
this stage, I am constrained to observe that the pace at which the defendant
is participating in the suit, causing delay at each and every step, does not
give credence to the said argument. As aforesaid, in spite of issues being
framed nearly three years ago, the recording of evidence is at a nascent
stage. At this pace, the final decision of the case is still several years away.
26. As far as the contention of the counsel for the defendant regarding
public interest is concerned, it cannot be lost sight of that the defendant,
after ten years changed the name of its service from DD Direct+ to DD Free
Dish. It is not the case of the defendant that in doing so, any such
consequence followed. The defendant has also not disclosed the need for
such change. There is no reason for the defendant to now, upon being
asked to make the change instead of affecting the same voluntarily, suspect
any such harm to the public. Moreover, the said aspect can be taken care of
by providing sufficient time to the defendant to make its customers /
subscribers aware of the change including on its own telecast.
27. Rather, I am dismayed that the defendant, a public sector enterprise,
indulged in using another‟s trade mark and in spite of the plaintiff objecting
thereto, refused to act reasonably. The same is not expected of a public
sector enterprise which according to the proclaimed litigation policy of the
Government is not to be indulged in. It is at least now expected that the
officials responsible for conduct of the business of the defendant will
bestow attention thereto and take a call, whether it is worthwhile to contest
this litigation, obviously at the cost of the exchequer.
CS(COMM) 347/2016 Page 16 of 17
28. The aforesaid being the characteristic of the controversy, it is not
deemed necessary to burden this judgment by a discussion on plethora of
other judgments which have been cited, when the two crucial issues have
been dealt with hereinabove.
29. The application is thus allowed. The defendant, during the pendency
of the suit is restrained from infringing the trade mark of the plaintiff by
adopting the mark „DD FREE DISH‟ or any other mark incorporating the
word „DISH‟ in it.
30. However, the defendant is granted three months time to inform its
consumers / subscribers of the new name, so as to not cause any of the
consumers / subscribers to suffer as has been canvassed.
31. The application is disposed of.
CS(COMM) 347/2016
32. List before the Joint Registrar on 24th July, 2019 for scheduling the
date/s of trial.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.
JULY 16, 2019 „bs‟ CS(COMM) 347/2016 Page 17 of 17