MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

Trademark Pirates Face Legal Wrath: Delhi HC Enforces Radio Mirchi’s IP Rights Swiftly

23 November 2024 9:49 AM

By: Deepak Kumar


Delhi High Court granted a decree in favor of Entertainment Network (India) Limited (ENIL), owner of the well-known trademarks "Radio Mirchi" and "Sunday Suspense." The Court ruled against unauthorized users of the plaintiff’s intellectual property, invoking Order VIII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, due to non-compliance by the defendants.
"Court Will Not Tolerate Trademark Infringement: Order VIII Rule 10 Invoked to Protect IP Rights"
Justice Mini Pushkarna decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff after the majority of the defendants failed to respond to the lawsuit or file written statements. Defendants who had complied with interim directions were also absolved of liability, leaving the non-compliant parties proceeded against ex-parte.
Entertainment Network (India) Limited (ENIL), a subsidiary of Bennett, Coleman & Co. Ltd. (Times of India Group), operates India’s prominent FM station "Radio Mirchi." Since 2009, ENIL has been producing and broadcasting audio content under the trademarks "Sunday Suspense" and "Radio Mirchi."
In 2021, ENIL discovered that multiple websites, apps, and social media accounts were illegally using its content and trademarks, including:
Apps on Google Play Store offering pirated "Sunday Suspense" stories.
Websites with infringing URLs such as "https://www.headfone.co.in/channel/sunday-suspense."
Social media accounts mimicking ENIL's branding.
ENIL issued cease-and-desist notices to the infringers but received limited compliance. Consequently, it filed the present suit seeking permanent injunctions and damages for copyright and trademark violations.
On December 22, 2022, the Court issued an interim injunction ordering certain defendants to take down infringing URLs and disclose their servers. Some defendants, such as intermediaries represented by defendants 26 to 28, complied, but others, including defendants 1 to 25, failed to file written statements.
Consequently, the Court declared defendants 1 to 25 and others ex-parte, noting their lack of participation as a deliberate attempt to delay proceedings. Justice Pushkarna emphasized that the purpose of Order VIII Rule 10 CPC is to prevent misuse of judicial processes and to ensure swift adjudication in commercial disputes.
The Court cited precedents, including Christian Broadcasting Network, INC v. CBN News Private Limited and Nirog Pharma Pvt. Ltd. v. Umesh Gupta, to highlight the importance of expediting commercial suits. The judgment noted:
“Order VIII Rule 10 has been inserted by the legislature to expedite the process of justice. Courts can invoke its provisions to curb dilatory tactics often resorted to by defendants by not filing written statements.”
Finding the plaintiff’s case “unimpeachable,” the Court decreed the suit in ENIL’s favor without requiring further evidence. The judgment directed a permanent injunction against defendants 1 to 25 from further infringing ENIL's trademarks and copyrights.
This ruling underscores the judiciary’s proactive approach in protecting intellectual property rights in the digital age. It highlights the importance of compliance in commercial litigation, demonstrating that deliberate non-participation can lead to swift and decisive action.

Date of Decision: November 4, 2024

Latest Legal News