Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi High Court - Orders

Itv Studios Netherlands Content B V vs Voice Of Mithila on 22 September, 2022

Author: Navin Chawla

Bench: Navin Chawla

                    $~19
                    *    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                    +    CS(COMM) 661/2022
                         ITV STUDIOS NETHERLANDS CONTENT B V
                                                                       ..... Plaintiff
                                       Through: Mr.Peeyoosh Kalra, Mr. CA Brijesh,
                                                Mr.Ishith Arora & Ms.Pragati
                                                Agrawal, Advs.

                                                 versus

                             VOICE OF MITHILA                                ..... Defendant
                                           Through:            None.

                          CORAM:
                          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA
                                                ORDER

% 22.09.2022 I.A. 15589/2022 (Exemption)

1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

3. The plaintiff shall, however, shall remain bound to produce the original documents if the inspection of the same is requested for by the defendant and/or directed by this Court.

CS(COMM) 661/2022

4. Let the plaint be registered as a suit.

5. Issue summons to the defendant to be served through all permitted modes, including electronically, returnable on 16th December, 2022 before the learned Joint Registrar (Judicial).

6. The summons to the defendant shall indicate that the written statement to the plaint shall be positively filed within a period of 30 days Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SHALOO BATRA Signing Date:23.09.2022 03:41:14 from the date of receipt of summons. Along with the written statement, the defendant shall also file the affidavit of admission/denial of the documents of the plaintiff, without which the written statement shall not be taken on record.

7. Liberty is given to the plaintiff to file the replication within a period of 15 days of the receipt of the written statement. Along with the replication, if any, filed by the plaintiff, the affidavit of admission/denial of documents of the defendant be filed by the plaintiff, without which the replication shall not be taken on record. If any of the parties wish to seek inspection of any documents, the same shall be sought and given within the timelines.

8. Issue notice.

9. On the plaintiff taking steps, let notice be served on the defendant through all permissible modes, including electronically, returnable on 16th December, 2022 before the learned Joint Registrar (Judicial).

10. Let reply to the application be filed by the defendant within a period of four weeks of receipt of the notice. Rejoinder thereto, if any, be filed within a period of two weeks thereafter.

11. It is the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff is a renowned entertainment content producer running/organizing established talent shows under the trade mark/artwork 'THE VOICE'/ . It is also the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SHALOO BATRA Signing Date:23.09.2022 03:41:14 registered proprietor of the mark under application no. 3050861 in Class 41 dated 08.09.2015, on a user claim of 31.03.2015. The plaintiff asserts that its programme/show aired in India since the year 2010 and was lastly aired in February, 2019 on Star Channel. The plaintiff also gives the details of its worldwide registrations in paragraph 13 of the plaint and its Indian registrations as also the pending applications in paragraph 14 of the plaint.

12. The learned counsel for the plaintiff further submits that the plaintiff suffixes the name of the country where the programme is aired to its mark 'THE VOICE', the details whereof are given at page 31 of the list of documents.

13. The plaintiff is aggrieved of the adoption of the mark / by the defendant.

14. The learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that the defendant is primarily engaged in the business of creating and uploading video contents on the internet. He submits that adoption of a similar mark would, therefore, not only infringe the right of the plaintiff, but also result in passing off and dilution of the mark of the plaintiff. He submits that an application, being application no. 4825207 in Class 9, has been filed by the defendant for seeking registration of its mark, which has been opposed by the plaintiff and Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SHALOO BATRA Signing Date:23.09.2022 03:41:14 the said proceedings are still pending.

15. Having considered the contents of the plaint, the documents filed therewith, and having heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff, in my opinion, the plaintiff has been able to make out a good prima facie case in its favour for the grant of an ad-interim ex-parte injunction. The plaintiff shall suffer grave irreparable injury, in case, an ad-interim ex-parte injunction is not granted inasmuch as the marks adopted by the defendant appear to be deceptively similar to that of the plaintiff.

16. The plaintiff has asserted a worldwide reputation of its mark and any such adoption by the defendant is likely to cause dilution in the identity of that mark. The balance of convenience is also in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant inasmuch as the plaintiff asserts that the defendant is new entrant, claiming user only since the year 2020.

17. Accordingly, an ad-interim ex-parte injunction in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant is passed in terms of prayers (a) to (c) in the application, till further orders.

18. Compliance with Order XXXIX Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, be made within two working days.

19. Dasti.

NAVIN CHAWLA, J SEPTEMBER 22, 2022/rv Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SHALOO BATRA Signing Date:23.09.2022 03:41:14