“In a legal dispute featuring Capital TV as Defendant 1, which had produced programs bearing titles identical to those of TV Today Network Ltd., Justice Prathiba M. Singh ruled in favor of the plaintiff. The court issued a restraining order, prohibiting the defendants from employing logos or marks such as “TO THE POINT,” “HALLA BOL,” “SPECIAL REPORT,” “BLACK & WHITE”, “KISMAT CONNECTION,” or any other mark deemed deceptively similar to the plaintiff’s marks in the context of news and current affairs programs. However, the court allowed the individual use of common words, provided they were part of standard Hindi and English language usage, on the condition that such usage clearly distinguished Capital TV’s programs from those of the plaintiff.”

Capital TV Background

In this legal case, the plaintiff sought protection for their television programs. The plaintiff operates prominent TV channels such as ‘AajTak’, ‘AajTak HD,’ ‘India Today Television,‘ and ‘Good News Today‘ (formerly known as ‘Tez’). The plaintiff is involved in various businesses, including broadcasting, publishing, e-commerce, and is a significant part of the renowned ‘India Today Group,’ known for publications like the famous ‘India Today’ magazine and other well-established magazines.

The plaintiff contended that the program names ‘TO THE POINT’ and ‘SPECIAL REPORT’ had been registered under the Trade Marks Act of 1999. On the other hand, Defendant 1, Capital TV, had produced programs with titles identical to those of the plaintiff. Capital TV operated a digital news and current affairs platform through its website, www.capitaltv.in, and had a presence on various social media platforms, including YouTube, Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter (referred to as “X” in the document).

Analysis of Capital TV

Upon examination, the Court noted that the plaintiff’s television channels enjoyed significant popularity, with some programs carefully curated and produced in a distinct manner. The program names were chosen based on the content’s nature. The Court’s opinion was that while the specific words used for news programs might not be subject to exclusive rights, combination marks could be safeguarded if they had gained secondary significance.

Additionally, the Court observed that the defendants had imitated several of the plaintiff’s logos and marks, using identical or deceptively similar fonts, appearances, and color schemes. The fact that the names were clearly borrowed from the plaintiff’s television programs indicated that Defendant 1’s intention might have been either to pass off its programs as those of the plaintiff or to suggest some form of association or affiliation with the plaintiff.

Also Read –“Supreme Court’s Landmark Directive to IT Dept: Temporarily Halt Assessment Orders for AAP and Gandhis Amid Transfer Challenge”

The Court concluded that the plaintiff had successfully established a prima facie case of passing off and trademark infringement. Furthermore, the Court determined that the balance of convenience favored the plaintiff, and failure to issue an injunction at this stage would result in irreparable harm to the plaintiff. Consequently, the Court ordered the defendants to refrain from utilizing logos and marks such as “TO THE POINT,” “HALLA BOL,” “SPECIAL REPORT,” “BLACK & WHITE,” “KISMAT CONNECTION,” or any other marks that closely resembled the plaintiff’s marks in the context of news and current affairs programs. Nevertheless, the Court permitted the use of individual words, as long as they were part of common parlance in both Hindi and English languages, provided that they were employed in a manner that clearly distinguished Capital TV’s programs from those of the plaintiff.

Decision

The Court also mandated that Defendant 1 should remove all links associated with these programs from any online platform. In the event of non-compliance, the plaintiff was granted the authority to notify the relevant platforms of the specific URLs, and these platforms were instructed to remove the URLs. This directive applied as long as the program names were identical. In cases of uncertainty regarding any links or URLs, the parties were granted the right to seek clarification from the Court.