Renewal Is Not Extension Unless Terms Are Fixed in Same Deed: Bombay High Court Strikes Down ₹64.75 Lakh Stamp Duty Demand on Nine-Year Lease Fraud Vitiates All Solemn Acts—Appointment Void Ab Initio Even After 27 Years: Allahabad High Court Litigants Cannot Be Penalised For Attending Criminal Proceedings Listed On Same Day: Delhi High Court Restores Civil Suit Dismissed For Default Limited Permissive Use Confers No Right to Expand Trademark Beyond Agreed Territories: Bombay High Court Enforces Consent Decree in ‘New Indian Express’ Trademark Dispute Assam Rifles Not Entitled to Parity with Indian Army Merely Due to Similar Duties: Delhi High Court Dismisses Equal Pay Petition Conspiracy Cannot Be Presumed from Illicit Relationship: Bombay High Court Acquits Wife, Affirms Conviction of Paramour in Murder Case Bail in NDPS Commercial Quantity Cases Cannot Be Granted Without Satisfying Twin Conditions of Section 37: Delhi High Court Cancels Bail Orders Terming Them ‘Perversely Illegal’ Article 21 Rights Not Absolute In Cases Threatening National Security: Supreme Court Sets Aside Bail Granted In Jnaneshwari Express Derailment Case A Computer Programme That Solves a Technical Problem Is Not Barred Under Section 3(k): Madras High Court Allows Patent for Software-Based Data Lineage System Premature Auction Without 30-Day Redemption Violates Section 176 and Bank’s Own Terms: Orissa High Court Quashes Canara Bank’s Gold Loan Sale Courts Can’t Stall Climate-Resilient Public Projects: Madras High Court Lifts Status Quo on Eco Park, Pond Works at Race Club Land No Cross-Examination, No Conviction: Gujarat High Court Quashes Customs Penalty for Violating Principles of Natural Justice ITAT Was Wrong in Disregarding Statements Under Oath, But Additions Unsustainable Without Corroborative Evidence: Madras High Court Deduction Theory Under Old Land Acquisition Law Has No Place Under 2013 Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court Enhances Compensation for Metro Land Acquisition UIT Cannot Turn Around After Issuing Pattas, It's Estopped Now: Rajasthan High Court Private Doctor’s Widow Eligible for COVID Insurance if Duty Proven: Supreme Court Rebukes Narrow Interpretation of COVID-Era Orders Smaller Benches Cannot Override Constitution Bench Authority Under The Guise Of Clarification: Supreme Court Criticises Judicial Indiscipline Public Premises Act, 1971 | PP Act Overrides State Rent Control Laws for All Tenancies; Suhas Pophale Overruled: Supreme Court Court Has No Power To Reduce Sentence Below Statutory Minimum Under NDPS Act: Supreme Court Denies Relief To Young Mother Convicted With 23.5 kg Ganja Non-Compliance With Section 52-A Is Not Per Se Fatal: Supreme Court Clarifies Law On Sampling Procedure Under NDPS Act MBA Degree Doesn’t Feed the Stomach: Delhi High Court Says Wife’s Qualification No Ground to Deny Maintenance

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