CASE: LIVING MEDIA INDIA LTD. & ANR VS. AAB TAK CHANNEL.COM (JOHN DOES) & ORS
Brief facts:
All the defendant has used the suffix “Tak” on which Plaintiffs have the legal right under Trademark bearing trade mark number 1242922 in class 38 and trade mark number 1242921 in class 41. Moreover, the mark is also registered in favour of Plaintiff No.1 under various classes. Defendants used the suffix “Tak” for their channels, pages with different names and programmes on online platforms due including facebook, twitter, youtube, Instagram, and many more. Therefore, The Plaintiffs have filed the present suit seeking permanent injunction restraining infringement of trade marks, copyright, passing off, dilution, rendition of accounts, damages, etc., against the Defendants. the Plaintiffs claim that their goodwill and reputation is not merely limited to the mark ‘AAJ TAK’, but also extends to various formative marks of ‘AAJ TAK’ and other marks ending with the word ‘TAK’. In the present suit, the grievance of Plaintiffs is that various known and unknown parties have started using Plaintiffs’ trademark ‘AAJ TAK’ in on online platforms including Facebook, Twitter, Instagram. Various parties have also uploaded videos using infringing marks which are either derived from the mark ‘AAJ TAK’ or use the mark ‘TAK’ as suffix. Some parties are also using similar logo forms and devices as that of the Plaintiffs’ registered marks.
Issues Observed:
1. Whether the Defendants’ mark infringed the Plaintiff’s mark?
2. Whether the Plaintiff’s mark had gained any recognition in India at the time when the Defendants adopted their mark?
3. Whether Plaintiff was entitled to claim exclusive rights over the two words “AAJ” or “Tak”?
Claim: Order XXXIX Rule 3 of Code of Criminal Procedure- Injunction
Arguments
Plaintiff’s Side
- The mark ‘AAJ TAK’ is a well-known mark that is often used on social media. The Plaintiffs have created several accounts, profiles, and handles on social media and content sharing sites such as Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and Instagram, to which millions of individuals subscribe. The mark ‘AAJ TAK’ has also been extended to numerous programmes such as ‘Agenda Aaj Tak,’ ‘Sahitya Aaj Tak,’ ‘Budget Aaj Tak,’ and ‘Panchayat Aaj Tak.’ The Plaintiffs further claim to have built an enormous digital-first ecosystem with the suffix ‘TAK’ by employing marks such as ‘Bharat Tak’, ‘Astro Tak’, ‘Fit Tak’, ‘Mobile Tak’, ‘Kids Tak’, ‘Life Tak’, ‘Mumbai Tak’, ‘News Tak’, ‘Sports Tak’, ‘Food Tak’, ‘Duniya Tak’, ‘Crim Tak’ etc.
- Thus, the Plaintiffs claim that their goodwill and reputation is not merely limited to the mark ‘AAJ TAK’, but also extends to various formative marks of ‘AAJ TAK’ and other marks ending with the word ‘TAK’.
JUDGEMENT
The Hon’ble High Court, in the case of Living Media India Ltd. Vs. AAB Tak Channel. Com & ors., has considered that, there can be no doubt that the reputation and goodwill in the name and mark ‘AAJ TAK’ is well established. The mark ‘TAK’ is also used by the Plaintiffs in respect of various programs and social media accounts, profiles, and handles. Thus, the Plaintiffs’ rights deserve to be protected.
There are a large number of infringing posts/profiles/accounts which are being used on the internet against which injunction is being sought in the present suit. This Court is prima facie convinced that a case is made out for grant of an ad-interim injunction against some of the Defendants. Most of the offending names and logos used are infringing in nature. Thus, barring the name ‘Sach Tak’, all the remaining infringing profiles, accounts, videos, channels are liable to be taken down as they are either using identical or deceptively similar names including logos and writing styles which is a colourable imitation of the Plaintiffs’ Aaj Tak logo.
Insofar as anonymous Defendants described as John Does, are concerned, the following directions are issued:
Wherever the mark ‘AAJ TAK’ is being identically used on an online platform such as Twitter, Facebook, Instagram or in any videos, the same shall be taken down within 36 working hours upon information, including the specific URLs, being given by the Plaintiffs to the respective platforms i.e., Defendant Nos.31 to 36;
CASE NO: CS (COMM) 193/2022 & I.AS.4841-43/2022
COURT: HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF NEW DELHI
BENCH: JUSTICE PRATIBHA M. SINGH
DUCTUS EDGE 