"News Hour" & "Nation Wants to Know" Delhi High Court Grants Interim Injunction in Favour of Times Now

"News Hour" & "Nation Wants to Know" Delhi High Court Grants Interim Injunction in Favour of Times Now

The Delhi High Court on 23rd October by a single Judge Bench Hon'ble Justice Jayant Nath in the case of BENNETT COLEMAN & CO. LTD. (parent company of the channel) ruled in favour of Times Now and granted an interim relief while restraining Republic TV from using the trademark 'NEWS HOUR' or any other mark that may be deceptively similar to it.

However, the court partly allowed the present application and refused to grant any interim relief with respect to use of the tag line 'Nation wants to know' noting that a detailed examination of the issue is required.

A decree of permanent injunction was sought to restrain the defendants from adopting or using the trademarks/titles/taglines 'NATION WANTS TO KNOW' or any other trade mark/title/tagline either by itself or comprising 'NATION WANTS TO KNOW' or any derivatives or combinations.

The trademark 'News Hour' was registered by the Times Group under Classes 16, 35 and 38 in 2014 and the mark itself has been in use since 2006.

Therefore, the plaintiff Group claimed statutory right over this trademark. As regards the phrase 'Nation wants to know', Times Group claims that this tagline was a product of the efforts of the editorial and marketing team during the creative efforts undertaken for and on behalf of the plaintiff group.

The phrase or tagline was to be used during the debates and discussions conducted during the primetime program News Hour, which was anchored up until the departure of the Editor-in-Chief in November 2016.

It was further pleaded by the plaintiff's that the tagline/trade mark THE NATION WANTS TO KNOW has also been copied ad verbum. It was reiterated that the words NEWSHOUR and NATION WANTS TO KNOW are well known marks associated with the Times Group considering its scale, business, reputation and goodwill.

Further it was stated that the defendants have misled and continued to mislead and misguide public at large which already associates or is most likely to associate the impugned trademarks/titles/taglines with the plaint of the Company. It was stated that the acts of the defendants also equivalent to passing off on account of confusion and deception. The acts of the defendants are causing irreparable injury, damage and prejudice to the plaintiff.

The defendants argued that the present proceedings have been initiated in the form of 'vendetta litigation' and merely in a purported attempt to harass and arm-twist the defendants. The present suit should be devoid of any merits. It was further stated that the suit is not maintainable and is barred by the doctrine of Res Sub Judice. The plaintiff on 17th May, 2017 had instituted a suit being infringement of its alleged intellectual property.

The second contention in the dispute was that it is not a registered mark and is a tagline that both parties stake claim on giving rise to the question of whether the defendant was indulging in passing off. While plaintiff claimed proprietary right, defendant stated that the tagline was never associated with the plaintiff.

The Court first dealt with the preliminary objection raised by the defendants that the present suit is barred by the principle of Res Sub Judice. This plea has been taken stating that the matter in the present suit is directly and substantially in issue in the previous suit filed by the plaintiff in 2017.

To this court held that the suit was not barred by the principle as per Order 2 Rule 2 of CPC plaintiff is bound to include the whole of the claim which he is entitled to make in respect of the 'cause of action'. Where a plaintiff omits to sue in respect of any portion of his claim, he shall not claim thereafter for the portion so omitted and relinquished. Prima facie of the earlier suit filed was based on the cause of action of infringement of intellectual property right whereas the present suit is based on infringement of trade mark and seeking appropriate relief pertaining to passing off of the trademark/tagline.

The Court for the second objection opined that the issue needs further examination of documents adduced by both sides and can be done when the parties lead evidence.

The Court stated, "The date of user of the tagline NATION WANT TO KNOW can only be decided appropriately after the parties have led their evidence. In these facts and circumstances, prima facie it is not possible, at this stage without leading of evidence, to come to a conclusion that the defendants seek to mislead the consumers of the news channel or that the action of the defendants in using the said tagline would cause damage to the plaintiff as claimed."

Therefore, in a partial relief, the Court granted an interim injunction in favour of Times Group, refraining Republic Network from using 'News Hour' or anything deceptively similar to it with no interim relief being granted with respect to 'Nation Wants to Know'.