First Appellate Court Cannot Grant Relief Beyond Pleadings Or Determine Shares In A Non-Partition Suit: Jharkhand High Court Probate Cannot Be Granted Merely On Proof Of Signature If Suspicious Circumstances Surrounding Testator’s Health & Will’s Execution Remain Unexplained: Gujarat High Court Litigant Seeking Case Transfer Under Section 24 CPC Must Approach Court With Clean Hands: Andhra Pradesh High Court Technical Qualification In Tenders Does Not Guarantee Selection; Presentation For Qualitative Assessment Is Permissible 'Play In The Joints': Delhi High Court Registration Of Sale Deed Acts As Constructive Notice; Section 53A TPA Is A Shield, Not A Sword To Assert Ownership: Gujarat High Court Is Dividend Distribution Tax A Tax On Company Or Shareholder? Bombay High Court Refers 'Cleavage Of Opinion' To Larger Bench May" In Service Regulations Is Directory; Delinquent Employee Has No Right To Insist On Common Disciplinary Proceedings: Supreme Court Billing Errors In Hospitals Don't Amount To Cheating Or Breach Of Trust Without Proof Of Dishonest Intention: Supreme Court Quashed FIR IBC Appeal Filed Without Applying For Certified Copy Within Limitation Period Is 'Incurably Tainted': Supreme Court 35% Share Of Gross Receipts From AOP Is 'Revenue Sharing' Taxable As Business Income, Not Tax-Exempt 'Share Of Profit': Supreme Court Market Value Determination Under Section 26(1) Of 2013 LA Act Cannot Be Based On A Single Sale Deed Of Dissimilar Land: Supreme Court Professional Career Choice Of Qualified Woman Not Cruelty Or Desertion; Wife's Identity Not Subject To 'Spousal Veto': Supreme Court Dictation Given In Open Court Not Final Judgment; Only Signed Order Embodies Final Unalterable Opinion: Supreme Court Engineering Student's Notional Income Cannot Be Equated To Minimum Wages Of Unskilled Workers: Supreme Court Enhances Compensation High Court Cannot Stay Filing Of Charge-Sheet By Blindly Relying On Precedents Without Factual Analysis: Supreme Court State Must Impart Education In Mother Tongue; Supreme Court Directs Rajasthan Govt To Introduce Rajasthani Language In Schools Right To Receive Education In Mother Tongue Or Language Of Choice Is A Fundamental Right Under Article 19(1)(a): Supreme 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

Latest Legal News