Delhi HC Restrains ‘Baap Ki Adalat’ for Trademark Infringement

Case 4: Independent News Service Pvt. Ltd. & Rajat Sharma v. Ravindra Kumar Choudhary & Ors.

Citation: 2024 SCC OnLine Del 3142
Court: Delhi High Court
Date Decided: 30 May 2024
Judge: Justice Anish Dayal

Background

Independent News Service Pvt. Ltd. (INS), the proprietor of the 24-hour Hindi news channel “India TV,” and its Chairman and Editor-in-Chief, Rajat Sharma, filed a suit against Ravindra Kumar Choudhary and others. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants were using the mark/logo “Baap Ki Adalat,” which was deceptively similar to their registered trademark/logo “Aap Ki Adalat,” a well-known television program featuring interviews with prominent personalities. The defendants, particularly Choudhary, a self-proclaimed political satirist, were creating and publishing various video and audio content on social media platforms under the impugned mark.

Plaintiff’s MARK

Defendant’s MARK

Legal Issues

1. Whether the defendants’ use of the mark/logo “Baap Ki Adalat” infringed upon the plaintiffs’ registered trademark/logo “Aap Ki Adalat” under the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
2. Whether the defendants’ actions constituted passing off, leading to confusion among the public.
3. Whether the unauthorized use of Rajat Sharma’s name, photograph, and video violated his personality rights.

Parties’ Contentions

Plaintiffs (Independent News Service Pvt. Ltd. & Rajat Sharma):

• Asserted that “Aap Ki Adalat” is a registered trademark and a widely recognized television program, thereby possessing significant goodwill and reputation.
• Claimed that the defendants’ use of “Baap Ki Adalat” was deceptively similar, both phonetically and visually, leading to confusion among the public.
• Alleged that the defendants’ use of Rajat Sharma’s name, photograph, and video without consent infringed upon his personality rights.

Defendants (Ravindra Kumar Choudhary & Ors.):

• At the time of the interim injunction, the defendants had not filed a response.

Decision

The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favor of the plaintiffs, restraining the defendants from:

• Using the mark/logo “Baap Ki Adalat” or any other mark/logo deceptively similar to “Aap Ki Adalat” in any manner, including as a trademark, logo, trading style, domain name, social media posts, audio-video content, or in relation to any services.
• Using the photograph, video, or name of Rajat Sharma in any manner that would violate his personality rights.

The court directed the defendants to remove the infringing content from their social media platforms and scheduled the next hearing for 18 October 2024.

Ratio Decidendi

• The court found a prima facie case of trademark infringement and passing off, noting the deceptive similarity between “Aap Ki Adalat” and “Baap Ki Adalat.”
• Recognized the significant reputation and goodwill associated with the plaintiffs’ trademarks, and the potential for confusion and deception among the public due to the defendants’ use of a deceptively similar mark.
• Acknowledged the violation of Rajat Sharma’s personality rights through the unauthorized use of his name, photograph, and video.

LEGAL ANALYSIS

Trade Marks Act, 1999: Sections 29(1), 29(2)(b), 29(4)

• (1) A registered trade mark is infringed by a person who, not being a registered proprietor or a person using by way of permitted use, uses in the course of trade, a mark which is identical with, or deceptively similar to, the trade mark in relation to goods or services in respect of which the trade mark is registered and in such manner as to render the use of the mark likely to be taken as being used as a trade mark.
• (b) its similarity to the registered trademark and the identity or similarity of the goods or services covered by such registered trademark; or
• (4) A registered trade mark is infringed by a person who, not being a registered proprietor or a person using by way of permitted use, uses in the course of trade, a mark which— (a) is identical with or similar to the registered trade mark; and (b) is used in relation to goods or services which are not similar to those for which the trade mark is registered; and (c) the registered trade mark has a reputation in India and the use of the mark without due cause takes unfair advantage of or is detrimental to, the distinctive character or repute of the registered trade mark.

• Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2
• Common law principles relating to passing off and personality rights

Bibliography

• Independent News Service Pvt. Ltd. & Rajat Sharma v. Ravindra Kumar Choudhary & Ors. [2024] SCC OnLine Del 3142
• ‘Delhi High Court restrains ‘Baap Ki Adalat’ for infringing Rajat Sharma’s popular show ‘Aap Ki Adalat’’ (SCC Online, 11 June 2024) https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2024/06/11/delhi-high-court-restrains-baap-ki-adalat-for-infringement-rajat-sharma-aap-ki-adalat-show-legal-news/
• ‘Delhi HC restrains use of ‘Baap Ki Adalat’, protects Rajat Sharma’s personality rights’ (The Indian Express, 10 June 2024) https://indianexpress.com/article/cities/delhi/delhi-high-court-rajat-sharma-personality-rights-baap-ki-adalat-9383971/