Not A Mere Breach Of Contract: Telangana High Court Refuses To Quash FIR In ₹73 Crore Garment Investment Fraud Accused Not Entitled To Copies Of 'Unrelied' Upon Documents At The Stage Of Framing Of Charges Under Section 91 CrPC: Supreme Court Elected Representatives Have No Privilege To Resort To Violence; Criminal Antecedents Are Material For Bail Adjudication: Supreme Court Mere Absence Of Transport Documents Does Not Create A Presumption Of Violation Of Chhattisgarh Agricultural Cattle Preservation Act, 2004: Supreme Court Section 396 IPC | Conviction For 'Dacoity With Murder' Requires Proof That Murder Was Committed In The Course Of Dacoity: Allahabad High Court 'Developers Cannot Delay Conveyance For Eternity And Milk Additional FSI Benefits': Bombay High Court Upholds Societies' Deemed Conveyance Pre-Approval Statutory Dues Stand Extinguished Upon Approval Of Resolution Plan; GST Authorities Cannot Initiate Fresh Proceedings: Calcutta High Court Unregistered Agreement To Sell With Delivery Of Possession Is Admissible In A Suit For Specific Performance: Delhi High Court Stigmatic Order Discharging Probationer Without Inquiry Is Void For Violation Of Natural Justice: Gujarat High Court Execution Proceedings | Court Cannot Impose Arbitrary Financial Conditions Without Reason In Stay Applications: Himachal Pradesh High Court Section 528 BNSS | High Court Cannot Exercise Inherent Powers To Circumvent Statutory Bar Against Second Revision: Delhi High Court Advocate Empanelment | Restriction On Multiple Applications Is A Procedural Choice Within Employer’s Domain: Delhi High Court Acquittal Appeal | Double Presumption Of Innocence In Favour Of Accused Cannot Be Disturbed Merely Because Another View Is Possible: Gujarat High Court SC/ST Act | Offence Under Section 3(1)(g) Not Attracted If Dispossession Or Interference Is Not Due To Victim's Caste: Himachal Pradesh High Court Judicial Officer Must Maintain Distance From Practicing Advocates To Avoid Impropriety: Gujarat High Court Upholds Dismissal Section 183 BNSS | Investigating Officer Cannot Independently Record Further Statement Of Victim After Recording Before Magistrate: Karnataka High Court Non-Production Of Case Property And Missing Link Evidence In Seizure Cases Vitiates Prosecution: Himachal Pradesh High Court Employees Compensation Act | Death Due To Cardiac Arrest During Employment Is An 'Accident' Arising Out Of Stress And Strain Of Duty: J&K High Court Transfer Of Proceedings | Courts Must Issue Fresh Notice To Parties Even If They Had Appeared Before The Transferor Court: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Ex-Parte Award Section 80P(4) IT Act Does Not Deny Deduction To Regional Rural Banks As They Retain The 'Deemed Co-operative Society' Status Under Section 22 RRB Act: Madras High Court Property Purchased In Name Of Child For Family Benefit Is Not A 'Benami Transaction' Under Section 2(9) Of The 1988 Act: Madhya Pradesh High Court Person Without Caveatable Interest Cannot Challenge Will Or Seek Revocation Of Probate: Madras High Court Divorce | Cruelty Must Be Assessed By Cumulative Effect Of Matrimonial Conduct Rather Than Isolated Incidents: Orissa High Court Merely Labeling Insurance Policy As Comprehensive Does Not Create Unlimited Liability: MP High Court Order VII Rule 11 CPC | Plaint Must Be Rejected If Limitation Bar Is Apparent From Face Of Pleadings: Patna High Court Limitation Act | 'Sufficient Cause' Cannot Be Used To Revive Stale Or Dead Claims By State: Orissa High Court Quashes Order Condoning 53-Year Delay Employee Cannot Remain Dormant Like Rip Van Winkle & Awaken At Convenience: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Stale Service Plea With ₹25K Cost Section 29 NDPS Act | Mere Allegation Of 'Cooperation' Without Specific Overt Acts Cannot Sustain Charge Of Conspiracy: Rajasthan High Court Forest Land Status Does Not Extinguish Private Civil Title: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Decree For Possession Once Admitted In Evidence, Document Cannot Be De-Marked On Grounds Of Insufficiency Of Stamp Duty: Telangana High Court Section 190 BNSS | Mere Presence In Unlawful Assembly With Active Intent Renders Member Vicariously Liable For Homicidal Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court Contributory Negligence Under Motor Vehicles Act Cannot Be Inferred Without Cogent Evidence: Telangana High Court Enhances Compensation Motor Vehicles Act | Section 164 Compensation Of Rs. 5 Lakhs Applicable Even To Pending Claims Arising Prior To 2019 Amendment: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consumer Protection Act | Builder Liable To Pay Interest For Delayed Possession Despite Force Majeure Plea If Agreement Executed Post-Outbreak: State Commission

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