TRAI Issuing Directions To Enforce Regulations Is Not 'Adjudication' Of Dispute, Does Not Usurp TDSAT's Jurisdiction: Supreme Court Candidate Can Challenge Selection Process After Participating If Arbitrariness Is Writ Large Or Rules Changed Mid-Way: Supreme Court Selection Committee Cannot Superimpose Additional Cut-Off Marks Not Prescribed In Rules: Supreme Court Litigants Must Ordinarily Approach High Court First For Quashing FIRs, Article 32 Is For Exceptional Circumstances: Supreme Court Supreme Court Refuses To Club Multiple FIRs In Cyber Fraud Case, Says Similar Modus Operandi Does Not Constitute 'Same Transaction' Layman Borrowers Not Liable For Forgery If Even Bank's Legal Experts Failed To Detect Fabrication In Title Deeds: Allahabad High Court Kerala High Court Orders Travancore Devaswom Board To Digitise Sabarimala Asset Inventory, Says Current Records Resemble 'Betel Shop' Ledger Second Husband In Void Marriage Cannot Be Prosecuted For Dowry Death Under Section 80 BNS: Allahabad High Court Cohabitation Of Barely 3 Months Insufficient To Trigger Presumption Of Live-In Relationship For Maintenance: Bombay High Court SC/ST Act Case Filed By Suspended Head Constable To 'Wreck Vengeance' Against Investigating Officers Quashed: Andhra Pradesh High Court Non-Compliance With Order For Production Of Documents Under O.11 R.14 CPC Cannot Warrant Striking Off Defence: Calcutta High Court Omission To Put Dying Declaration To Accused Under Section 313 CrPC Makes It Inadmissible, But Doesn't Demolish Entire Prosecution Case: Delhi High Court Victim's Appeal Against Magistrate's Acquittal Order Lies Before Sessions Court Under Section 413 BNSS: Gujarat High Court 'Fraud And Justice Cannot Dwell Together': Karnataka High Court Quashes 30-Year-Old Land Acquisition After Records Of Compensation Go Missing Electricity Authorities Cannot Determine Civil Liability For Energy Theft Under Section 135; Only Special Court Empowered: Madhya Pradesh High Court State Cannot Exploit Employees By Keeping Them On Part-Time Basis For Decades To Deny Old Pension Scheme: Punjab & Haryana HC

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