Calcutta High Court
Shailputri Media Private Limited vs Arg Outlier Media Asianet News Private ... on 4 March, 2020
Author: Sanjib Banerjee
Bench: Sanjib Banerjee, Hiranmay Bhattacharyya
OD-3
APO No.40 of 2020
GA No. 608 of 2020
GA No. 609 of 2020
GA No. 621 of 2020
In
CS No.177 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Civil Appellate Jurisdiction
ORIGINAL SIDE
SHAILPUTRI MEDIA PRIVATE LIMITED
Versus
ARG OUTLIER MEDIA ASIANET NEWS PRIVATE LIMITED
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE SANJIB BANERJEE
And The Hon'ble JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA Date : March 4, 2020.
Appearance Mr. Rudraman Bhattacharyya, Adv.
Mr. Sayan Roy Chowdhury, Adv.
Mr. Suvasish Sengupta, Adv.
Mr. Sourojit Dasgupta, Adv.
Ms. N. Banerjee, Adv.
Ms. S. Mitra, Adv.
Mr. A. Ray, Adv.
Mr. Ranjan Bachawat, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Debnath Ghosh, Adv.
Mr. Rajarshi Dutta, Adv.
Mr. Prabhakar Chowdhury, Adv.
Mr. Pankaj Agarwal, Adv.
Mr. Arjun Mookherjee, Adv.
Mr. H. Singh, Adv.
Mr. R. Poddar, Adv.
The Court : In view of the good grounds shown, the delay of three days in preferring the appeal is condoned and the appeal is taken up for immediate consideration.
2
This is one of the matters where it requires little argument to settle an issue. The fight is between REPUBLIC TV asserting its brand name and a small portal owner which publishes Hindi news under the domain name of REPUBLIC HINDI.
It is not as if REPUBLIC HINDI started years before REPUBLIC TV came to be launched, or even that REPUBLIC HINDI had earned considerable goodwill by the time REPUBLIC TV was born. Even in such a situation, the overbearing presence of the big name may result in the smaller party not being entitled to carry on despite the initial adoption of its name by the smaller party not being mala fide. In this case, REPUBLIC TV was launched on May 6, 2017 which was the same day on which the domain name of REPUBLIC HINDI was obtained by the defendant-appellant. It is a common knowledge - and judicial notice has to be taken of it, as a result - that right from its launch, REPUBLIC TV was big. Whether or not you subscribe to the channel, far less subscribe to the views expressed therein, you could scarcely be an informed Indian citizen without being aware of REPUBLIC TV and its antics. The defendant cannot be even spoken of in the same breath as REPUBLIC TV.
The defendant asserts that the word REPUBLIC is a common English word and even the attempt by the plaintiff to have its channel named REPUBLIC failed as the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting did not allow the channel to be named REPUBLIC. The application had to be altered to name the channel REPUBLIC TV for the licence to be granted by the Ministry. The substance of the defendant's contention is that since the word REPUBLIC cannot be seen in isolation and has to be seen in conjunction with TV, the defendant's REPUBLIC HINDI portal must be seen to be quite distinct from REPUBLIC TV.
The defendant's argument is exceptionable. The defendant's portal publishes Hindi news. REPUBLIC TV is a news channel and any person chancing upon REPUBLIC HINDI on the internet may tend to think that such portal was linked to the more 3 acclaimed REPUBLIC TV news channel. It is such confusion which is sought to be avoided in trade-mark law.
By the judgment and order impugned dated January 15, 2020, the trial court has referred to the manner of depiction of the word REPUBLIC in either case, the choice of colours and the labels. In a case where the popularity of one brand is so overwhelming qua the other, the form of depiction of a brand or the colour scheme or get-up used pale into insignificance. Quite plainly, REPUBLIC TV and REPUBLIC HINDI cannot coexist unless the two come from the same stable and this is the only aspect which has to be concentrated upon, particularly, at this interlocutory stage.
For the reasons aforesaid and the grounds indicated in the impugned judgment, the injunction granted cannot be questioned. However, all grounds available by way of defence can be canvassed at the trial. The judgment and order impugned do not call for any interference.
APO No. 40 of 2020 along with GA No. 621 of 2020 and GA No. 609 of 2020 are dismissed.
GA No. 608 of 2020 is disposed of.
There will be no order as to costs.
Since the defendant says that the written statement is ready, such written statement may be filed within a fortnight from date. Documents should be discovered within four weeks of the written statement being served; inspection forthwith thereupon. It will be open to the defendant to seek an expeditious hearing of the suit.
(SANJIB BANERJEE, J.) (HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, J.) sg.