Delhi High Court Backs CNN in Trademark Clash Against City News Network, Orders ₹7 Lakh Payment
Delhi High Court Backs CNN in Trademark Clash Against City News Network, Orders ₹7 Lakh Payment
CNN news channel has won a trademark infringement case against a Lucknow-based news website, leading the Delhi High Court to bar the website from using the marks "CNN City News Network" or "CNN".
Justice C Hari Shankar issued an order instructing the defendant entity, 'City News Network,' to take down or deactivate its website and three additional social media pages.
Defendant 1 has been directed by the Court to make a payment of ₹7 lakhs as costs to the plaintiff. This specified amount is required to be settled within 30 days.
The lawsuit was initiated by Cable News Network Inc. against City News Network and another entity, claiming that they have infringed upon its widely recognised trademark "CNN."
Although the issue was resolved with the second entity, City News Network did not have representation during the proceedings.
The CNN news channel accused the Lucknow-based entity of utilising its marks to deliver identical services. They claimed that exclusive rights are warranted for the use of the acronym CNN, particularly in the context of news channels or any related services involving the dissemination of news.
In decreeing the suit, Justice Shankar stated that the marks employed by City News Network unmistakably violated the registered trademarks of the CNN news channel as per the provisions outlined in Section 29(2)2 of the Trade Marks Act.
“If one is to take the textual component of the marks of Defendant 1 and the plaintiff, insofar as the mark is concerned, the plaintiff may well be entitled to the statutory presumption contained in Section 29(2)(c) read with Section 29(3) of the Trade Marks Act, as the textual component of Defendant 1's mark and the plaintiff's mark, i.e. ‘CNN’, is identical. A viewer would clearly associate the mark “CNN” with the plaintiff,” the Court said.
Moreover, it stressed that an ordinary viewer might easily assume an association between the marks of both parties, highlighting a considerable likelihood of such a misconception.
The Delhi High Court asserted that Defendant 1's use of the extended form "CITY NEWS NETWORK" would intensify the likelihood of confusion. The Court stated that the potential for confusion should be evaluated from the standpoint of an average consumer with imperfect recall. Additionally, it pointed out that the textual components "CNN" in both the plaintiff's and Defendant 1's marks, along with the resemblance in the expanded acronyms – "CABLE NEWS NETWORK" and "CITY NEWS NETWORK" – is likely to cause momentary confusion in the mind of a lay viewer.
