Hindustan Times wins Trademark case against US company Brainlink in Delhi High Court
By : Legal Era
Update: 2020-05-11 06:43 GMT
story
The Delhi High Court restrained US based company Brainlink International Inc., (Defendant) from using the domain name www.hindustan.com or any other mark similar to “Hindustan and “Hindustan Times” thereby granting relief in the trademark case to HT Media Limited (Plaintiff), publisher of Hindustan Times, and its subsidiary Hindustan Media Ventures Limited, publisher of the...
The Delhi High Court restrained US based company Brainlink International Inc., (Defendant) from using the domain name www.hindustan.com or any other mark similar to “Hindustan and “Hindustan Times” thereby granting relief in the trademark case to HT Media Limited (Plaintiff), publisher of Hindustan Times, and its subsidiary Hindustan Media Ventures Limited, publisher of the Hindi-language daily Hindustan.
The High Court also barred Brainlink from creating any third-party rights with respect to the domain name until the next hearing.
According to the case, Brainlink offered to sell the domain name to HT Media “at an exorbitant price”, but the attempt was unsuccessful.
Justice Jyoti Singh passed an interim order on a petition filed by Hindustan Media Ventures Limited. The petition sought to stop the US firm, its agents, promoters and other subsidiaries from using the domain name Hindustan.com.
The High Court has also held that Hindustan and Hindustan Times are trademarks of the plaintiff company. Further, the Court observed that the US firm’s bad faith could be inferred from the extortionist price quoted for the sale of the trademark.
The High Court observed, “The Defendants have not used the Domain name www.hindustan.com since 2000. This is evident from a reading of certain portions of the Complaint filed by the Defendants in USA, which have been brought to the attention of the Court, by learned counsel for the Plaintiffs. It thus, appears that the Defendants’ sole motive for registering the impugned Domain name was only to profiteer from the same and this is thus a classic case of cybersquatting. Mere passive holding of the Domain name, without any use, evinces bad faith of the Defendants under Clause 4 of the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP).”
The Court went on to hold that the Domain name registration by the Defendants was in bad faith, as defined under Clause 4 of the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy, as the Defendants were not using the Domain name for any legitimate activity, but had registered the same with the intention of earning monetary benefit. The Court said, “Owing to the Registered Trademarks owned by the Plaintiffs and the reputation and goodwill enjoyed by the said Marks, which is not restricted merely to India but is global, as also the fact that the Domain name is registered in “Bad Faith”, the Plaintiffs are entitled to an interim injunction from further use of the Domain name www.hindustan.com.”