Motor Insurance Policy Covers Cross-Border Travel If Specifically Authorized By Valid Permit Under MVA: Supreme Court Petrol Pumps Act As 'Commission Agents' For Mahanagar Gas, Liable To Pay Service Tax Under Business Auxiliary Service: Supreme Court Supreme Court Refuses To Dilute 'Bangalore Water Supply' Ratio, Affirms Worker Protection Remains The Core Of Industrial Disputes Act Order XXII Rule 9(3) CPC | Application Under Section 5 Limitation Act Must Be Filed Separately To Condonate Delay In Setting Aside Abatement: Supreme Court Principle Of Parity | Supreme Court Extends Benefit Of Fixed-Term Sentence To Co-Accused Based On Remission Period Right To Catch Fish Amounts To 'Profit à Prendre' And Is Compulsorily Registrable As A Lease Under Section 17(1)(d) Registration Act: Supreme Court Supreme Court Mandates Adoption Of Guidelines To Inculcate Sensitivity And Compassion In Judicial Processes For Sexual Offences 'Last Seen' Circumstance Is Weak Without Corroboration: Supreme Court Acquits Murder Accused PSEB | Pre-Regularization Service Must Be Counted As Qualifying Service For Pensionary Benefits: Supreme Court Writ Of Quo Warranto Cannot Be Used For Redress Of Personal Grievances By Unsuccessful Candidates In Selection Process: Supreme Court 'Case Of No Investigation': Supreme Court Acquits Murder Accused Citing 'Shoddy' Police Work And Lack Of Forensic Evidence 'Status Quo Cannot Be Vacated Without Appropriate Security': Supreme Court Directs Additional ₹200 Crores Deposit In RAKIA-Matrix Case SARFAESI Act | 'Bank' As Assignee Can Invoke Recovery Measures Even If Debt Was Originally Created By Non-Notified Financial Institution: Supreme Court 'CBI Failed Miserably': Supreme Court Tears Into 'Fabricated' Case, Acquits Bank Manager In 35-Year-Old Corruption Trial Mere Delay In Tax Deposit Cannot Be Equated With Non-Payment: Supreme Court Quashes Penalty On Saudi Arabian Airlines Revisional Power Under Section 56 Karnataka Land Revenue Act Cannot Be Invoked Beyond Three-Year Limitation Period: Supreme Court Prosecution Can’t Use Known Locations To Create 'Discovery' Fiction: Supreme Court Rejects Site Plan As Evidence Irretrievable Breakdown Of Marriage And Long-Term Separation Constitute Valid Grounds For Divorce Under Section 13(1)(ib) HMA: Supreme Court 'Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt Is A Guideline And Not A Fetish': Supreme Court Acquits Man In 2007 Murder Case Over Fragile Circumstantial Evidence Plea Of Juvenility Is A Jurisdictional Fact; High Court Must Recall Final Judgments Under Section 482 CrPC To Remedy Miscarriage Of Justice: Supreme Court SEBI | Professional Clearing Members Have No Statutory Obligation To Verify Credit/Debit Positions Of Individual Clients Of Trading Members: Supreme Court

Delhi High Court Rules 'Aashiqui' Is More Than Just a Word, It's a Brand

04 September 2024 4:40 PM

By: sayum


The Delhi High Court has granted an interim injunction in favor of Vishesh Films, restraining Super Cassettes Industries Limited (T-Series) from using the title "Tu Hi Aashiqui" or any variation thereof in their upcoming film. The judgment, delivered by Justice Sanjeev Narula on September 2, 2024, emphasized the likelihood of public confusion and trademark infringement, given the strong association of the term "Aashiqui" with the popular film franchise jointly developed by the two parties.

Vishesh Films, co-producer of the renowned "Aashiqui" and "Aashiqui 2," sought to protect its proprietary rights over the "Aashiqui" franchise, arguing that T-Series' proposed film title "Tu Hi Aashiqui" would mislead the public into believing it was part of the same series. Despite T-Series' disclaimer and assurances that their film was unrelated to the "Aashiqui" franchise, Vishesh Films contended that the use of the word "Aashiqui" would inevitably cause confusion due to its strong association with the existing films.

1. Jurisdiction: The court addressed the issue of jurisdiction raised by the defendant, asserting that while the agreements between the parties stipulated exclusive jurisdiction in Mumbai, the claims of trademark infringement and passing off, being tortious in nature, could be entertained by any court where part of the cause of action arose. The court found that it had the requisite jurisdiction to hear the case.

2. Distinctiveness of the "Aashiqui" Trademark: Justice Narula observed that the title "Aashiqui," while suggestive of romance, had acquired distinctiveness through its association with the successful film series. The court rejected T-Series' argument that "Aashiqui" was generic and common to trade, noting that the word had become a strong brand identifier for the "Aashiqui" franchise.

3. Likelihood of Confusion: The court applied the test of deceptive similarity, focusing on the overall impression created by the marks. It found that the use of "Aashiqui" in the proposed film title "Tu Hi Aashiqui" was likely to cause confusion among the public, who might mistakenly associate the new film with the established franchise. The court emphasized that the addition of the words "Tu Hi" and "Hai" did not sufficiently differentiate the title from the trademarked "Aashiqui."

4. Disclaimers and Public Perception: The court was not persuaded by T-Series' argument that a disclaimer would effectively prevent public confusion. Given the strong pre-existing association between "Aashiqui" and the film franchise, the court concluded that the disclaimer was unlikely to alter public perception.

The judgment extensively discussed the principles of trademark law, including the protection of suggestive marks and the importance of preventing public confusion. Justice Narula noted that trademark law is particularly concerned with the initial likelihood of confusion, which can cause significant harm even if temporary. The court also emphasized that in cases involving well-established brands, the balance of convenience and potential irreparable harm weigh heavily in favor of granting injunctions to prevent dilution of the brand.

"The public, upon seeing the title of the Defendant’s proposed film, is likely to assume a connection to the Aashiqui Franchise and infer that the Plaintiff is involved in or endorses the Defendant’s film, thus diluting the strength of the 'Aashiqui' brand," remarked Justice Sanjeev Narula.

The Delhi High Court's decision underscores the importance of protecting well-established trademarks from potential infringement and public confusion, particularly in the context of popular film franchises. The interim injunction prevents T-Series from using the title "Tu Hi Aashiqui," safeguarding the "Aashiqui" brand and setting a precedent for similar cases in the entertainment industry.

Date of Decision: September 2, 2024

Vishesh Films Private Limited vs. Super Cassettes Industries Limited

Latest Legal News