DA-2
IN TIII] TIIGII COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
HCIDA2 Dasti From
N.D.O.H;-
The Registrar General, Delhi Iligh Court,
15
.09.2014 Before court
New Delhi. 'l'o,
Mr. Saikrishna Rajagopal, Advocatc (Counsel for the Plaintiff) A-28, CMA Towcr, Sector -24,
Noida
- 201 301
Sub: CS (OS) 188312014 M/s IIl'Media Lirnited & Anr. V/s Navneet Chaturv'edi & Anr.
Plaintiff Defendant
Sir.
I am directed to forward herewith for information and necessary compliance. a copy of order dated 02.07.2014 passed by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Manmohan Singh of this Cour1. A copy of Memo of parties is also enclosed herewith.
Administrative Offi cer(J )( O-DA2) for Registrar General
lk Encls:
(l) A copy of
order dated 02.07.2014 passed by
Singh of this Court. (2) A copy of Memo of Parties.
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Manmohan
ptraintiffs Versus Navneet Chafurvedi & Anr.
Defendants
MEMO OF PARTIES
L.
nals
HT Media Limited
Hindustan Times House 78-20,K.6. Mar& New Delhi _ 110 001
...plaintiff No.1
2. NI/s Hindustan Times Ltd. Hindustan Times House, Floor., lg_20,11.6. Mar& New Delhi_110 001 9th
'1..
...plaintiff No.2 Versus
Navneet Chafurvedi
Gali No. 7, Mahipalpur
New Delhi-170027 ...Defendant No.1
2. Hindustan Times Online Second Floor, L_204, Street No. 7C, Mahipalpur,
New Dethi
New
Delhi
Date:!
...DefendantNo.2
)l's z"lntz
Saikrishnu,&,{"rociates :une,2014
Advocates for the plaintiffs A-2E, CMA Tower, Sector_24
Noida-201301 9810621,272
$-2s *
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI cs(os) r883t20r4 IWS HT MEDIA LTD & ANR ..... Plaintiffs Through Mr. Saikrishna Raj agopal, Adv. with Ms.Savni Dutt, Adv" versus
NAVNEET CI{ATURVEDI & ANR
..... Defendants
Through None.
CORAM:
IION'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH
ORDER
o
02.07.2014
I.A. No. 1 17 20 120X,4 & I.A.
No.
1, 1.
72 1/20
l4(exemption)
Exemption allowed, subject to just exceptions. The applications are disposed of. CS(OS) No. 1883/2014
Let the plaint be registered as a suit. Issue summons to the defendants, on
filing of process fee and Regd.
A.D..Covers within one week, retumable on 20tr August,2014.
Notice for the date fixed. The case of the plaintiffs is that the plaintiffs are amongst the leading
media houses
in India
engaged
in print media, radio, intemet etc. The
ptaintiffs are the parent entrty with its business extending in various fields but for the purposes of this suit, the plaintiffs are principally engaged in the business
of
publication
of newspapers 'HINDUSTAN TIMES. The
plaintiffs' newspapers have established their presence as pioneers in the business with their editorial excellence and integrity. At present, HINDUSTAN TTMES has an increased readership of over 3.7 million readers' lthe plaintiff No.2 has a prominent intemet presence through
its
websites www.hindustantimes.com amongst others, which news websites' The plaintiff No.2 is the owner registered in August,
1996.
is primarily
of the same which
a
was
The trade mark 'HINDUSTAN TIMES' has
been continuously and unintemrptedly used by the plaintiffs since the year
l92l
which has become extremely popular and well-known and is exclusively associated with the news publications pubtished by the plaintiffs. The trade mark HINUSTAN TIMES is a unique combination/ collocation of words in the English language thereby making the said trade
mark distinctive s)monymous
one. The said trade mark has therefore become
with the plaintiffs apart from having virtually become
household name
a
in India. Thus, use of the trade mark HINDUSTAN
TIME,S in connection with any goods or services clearly leads the members
of the public to infer that the source/origin of the said good/service is the plaintiffs only.
It is stated in the plaint that Hindustan Times is also the corporate name/trading style of the plaintiff No.2, The Hindustan Times Limited,
which was incorporated in the year 1924. In the year 2003, the Hindustan Times Limited transferred its media business including its news publication business to its subsidiary IWs HT Media
Limited. By virtue of
agreement
dated 15th August, 2003, the plaintiff No.1 is the subsequent proprietor of all
the intellectual property rights including in the trade mark "HINDUSTAN
TIMES". The HT Logo is a registered trade mark owned by the plaintiff
No.l. By virtue of distinctiveness
and prior, continuous, extensive and
significant use of the trade marks '6HT" and HT Logo, in respect of any product or services are known and associated by members of the public to be used by the
plaintiffs. The plaintiffs have established tremendous goodwill
and reputation in respect of the trade marks
'HINDUSTAN TIMES' and HT
on account of the high quality of news reporting. The details of
the
registered trade marks have been given in para 11 of the plaint.
The details of the revenue turnover for last three years have been given in para 13 of the plaint. The details of the expenses for the last three years have been given in para 13 of the plaint.
ih. d"f.ndants is that in the frrst
The case of the plaintiffs against
week of June, 2014, the plaintiffs came to know that a website providing
news in Hindi is being operated from the web domain www.hindustantimesonline.come. It appears to have been started on 1" April, 2014. The defendant website boasts of having a daily traffic of over 1,00,000 users including readership from minsters, bureaucrats, business people, professionals, students, academicians and scholars among several
others. The defendant website www.hindustantimesonline.com and its webpages are registered in the name of defendant No.1
.
The defendant No.
1
claims to be the Chief Editor of the defendant website. The defendant No.1
is
also believed to
be
using an
by which he
id
communicates with
third parties as the Chief Editor. According to the plaintiffs, defendant No.2, Hindustan Times Online, is a privately owned company with 51-200 employees. The defendants are
joined as parties in the instant suit as a common cause of action arises
against both the defendants and common reliefs are claimed against them.
The defendants are involved in the business of reporting news from India and abroad in Hindi. The defendants not only use a trade mark that is identical to the trade maTk "HNDUSTAN TIMES" which is registered trade mark of the plaintiff but also makes use of a mark identicatr to the plaintiffs' trade mark 66HT" and the HT Logo. They have used the trade marks identical to the plaintiffs' trade mark without the permission of the plaintiffs and the defendant have extended the illegal use of the
plaintiffs' trade marks
over various other social networking platforms, including Facebook, Twitter and Linkedtrn. Thereby the defendants are causing substantial harm to the
plaintiffs by misrepresenting to the target audience that the defendants' business is related to that of the plaintiffs.
The defendants are violating the plaintiffs' trade mark rights under Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act,
1999. The unauthorized use of the
plaintiffs' trade marks "HINDUSTAN TIMES", HT Logo and HT by the defendants amounts to infringement of the plaintiffs' registered trade marks and passing
off its website/business
as having a connection/affiliation
with
the plaintiffs. The activities of the defendants are causing irreparable harm
and injury
to the plaintiffs.
HINDUSTAN
TIMES
They have adopted the trade
ONLINE
and
name
website
www.hindustantimesonline.com, in order to ride upon the immense goodwill and transitional reputation enjoyed by the plaintiffs and are confusing the
members
of the public and taking unfair advantage of
the repute
of the
plaintiffs' registered trade mark. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiffs has referred to various paras of the plaint as well as the documents placed on record.
After hearing the learned counsel for the plaintiff this court
is
satisfied that the plaintiffs have been able to make out a strong prima facie case
in their favour. In
case the interim order is not passed, the plaintiffs
will suffer irreparable loss and injury. The balance of convenience also lies in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants. Since the plaintiffs are holding the registration of the trade mark HINDUSTAND TIMES, HT,
HT
logo, therefore, the strong prima facie case has been made in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants. The plaintiffs have also got the domain name registered in their favour namely www.hindustantimes.com and www.hindustantimes.in. Therefore, the defendants are not entitled to
use the domain name and website und,er the www.hindustantimesonline.com, their logo
name
or create any confusion or
deception in the trade.
Till the next date of hearing, the defendants, their principal officers, directors, agents, franchisees, servants and all others acting for and on its
behalf, are restrained from using the plaintiffs' registered trademarks "HINIDUSTAN TIMES, HT, HT logo and/or any other deceptive variant
including the plaintiffs' domain name www.hindustantimes.in,
in
hindustantimes.com,
any manner whatsoever, including but not
limited to I
in its domain name, u'ww.hindustantimesonline.corn; and
11
in or as part of its Facebook Profrle, named Hindustantimes Online.com, iocated at: the
IIRL at www.facebook.com/
hindustantimesonline and/or any other URL; and 111
in or as part of its Twitter handle, @HTONLINENEWS located at the
IIRL at www.twitter.com./HTonlinenews
andlor any other
URL; and
iv. in or as part of its Linkedln Profile HINDUSTANTIMES ONLINE, located at the URL www.linkedin.com/cornpany/ hindustantimes-online andlot any other URL; and
v. in or as part of its business e-mail IDs, including but not limited to
c
, t
)
; and
vi.
as part
of its news publications.
andlor doing any other actthat is likely to lead to infringement of the
plaintiffs' trademark and passing off. Compliance of Order Dasti.
JULY 02,20ulik
fL
XXXIX Rule 3 CPC be made within
one week'