- Home
- News
- Articles+
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- News
- Articles
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
Delhi High Court Restrains T-Series From Using 'Aashiqui' Title On Mukesh Bhatt’s Plea
Delhi High Court Restrains T-Series From Using 'Aashiqui' Title On Mukesh Bhatt’s Plea
The producer’s company Vishesh Films claimed infringement of its proprietary rights
The Delhi High Court has issued an interim injunction favoring Mukesh Bhatt and barring T-Series from using titles like ‘Tu Hi Aashiqui’ for the upcoming film.
The dispute arose over intellectual property rights concerning the ‘Aashiqui’ brand, a well-established and successful film series released in 1990 and 2013.
Bhatt's company, Vishesh Films Pvt Ltd had filed a suit against T-Series' Super Cassettes Industries Limited after both companies planned to develop a third installment of the ‘Aashiqui’ series.
The conflict began when T-Series announced a film with titles similar to ‘Tu Hi Aashiqui’ or ‘Tu Hi Aashiqui Hai’, which Bhatt's team claimed was misleading.
Bhatt and T-Series had collaborated and shared joint credits on the first two ‘Aashiqui’ films.
While acknowledging joint ownership of the ‘Aashiqui’ franchise, T-Series denied any plans to produce a work based on it.
It argued that its proposed titles, ‘Tu Hi Aashiqui’ and ‘Tu Hi Aashiqui Hai’ were distinct from the plaintiff's trademark and did not constitute a sequel. The film would be entirely different from the ‘Aashiqui’ franchise.
However, Vishesh Films claimed that T-Series was infringing on its proprietary rights. It stated that the new project of T-Series with a similar title violated the established rights and branding associated with the franchise.