Cruelty Need Not Be Physical: Mental Agony and Emotional Distress Are Sufficient Grounds for Divorce: Supreme Court Section 195 Cr.P.C. | Tribunals Are Not Courts: Private Complaints for Offences Like False Evidence Valid: Supreme Court Limitation | Right to Appeal Is Fundamental, Especially When Liberty Is at Stake: Supreme Court Condones 1637-Day Delay FIR Quashed | No Mens Rea, No Crime: Supreme Court Emphasizes Protection of Public Servants Acting in Good Faith Trademark | Passing Off Rights Trump Registration Rights: Delhi High Court A Minor Procedural Delay Should Not Disqualify Advances as Export Credit When Exports Are Fulfilled on Time: Bombay HC Preventive Detention Must Be Based on Relevant and Proximate Material: J&K High Court Terrorism Stems From Hateful Thoughts, Not Physical Abilities: Madhya Pradesh High Court Denies Bail of Alleged ISIS Conspiracy Forwarding Offensive Content Equals Liability: Madras High Court Upholds Conviction for Derogatory Social Media Post Against Women Journalists Investigation by Trap Leader Prejudiced the Case: Rajasthan High Court Quashes Conviction in PC Case VAT | Notice Issued Beyond Limitation Period Cannot Reopen Assessment: Kerala High Court Absence of Receipts No Barrier to Justice: Madras High Court Orders Theft Complaint Referral Under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C Rajasthan High Court Emphasizes Rehabilitation, Grants Probation to 67-Year-Old Convicted of Kidnapping" P&H High Court Dismisses Contempt Petition Against Advocate Renuka Chopra: “A Frustrated Outburst Amid Systemic Challenges” Kerala High Court Criticizes Irregularities in Sabarimala Melsanthi Selection, Orders Compliance with Guidelines Non-Payment of Rent Does Not Constitute Criminal Breach of Trust: Calcutta High Court Administrative Orders Cannot Override Terminated Contracts: Rajasthan High Court Affirms in Landmark Decision Minimum Wage Claims Must Be Resolved by Designated Authorities Under the Minimum Wages Act, Not the Labour Court: Punjab and Haryana High Court Madras High Court Confirms Equal Coparcenary Rights for Daughters, Emphasizes Ancestral Property Rights Home Station Preferences Upheld in Transfer Case: Kerala High Court Overrules Tribunal on Teachers' Transfer Policy Failure to Formally Request Cross-Examination Does Not Invalidate Assessment Order: Calcutta High Court

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

Similar News