- 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 rules in favor of HT Media
The suit pertained to infringement of the trademark rights
The Delhi High Court has passed an ad-interim order in favor of HT Media. It has restrained the impugned defendants from infringing HT Media's Intellectual Property rights in relation to the trademarks Hindustan Times and the Hindi logo Hindustan.
The court has also passed directions to the Internet Service Providers for blocking www.hindustantimesmarathi.com, the domain name/website of the defendants.
Recently, HT Media and Hindustan Media Ventures Limited had filed a commercial suit before the High Court seeking a permanent injunction and damages for infringement and illegal and unauthorized adoption of the plaintiff's trademarks and copyright vested in the Hindi logo 'Hindustan'.
It complained that the registrants/owners/developers of the domain name www.hindustantimesmarathi.com had knowingly been attempting to lure the existing and potential customers of HT Media by creating confusion in their minds. This pertained particularly to those well-versed in Marathi, as the defendant's domain name depicted the manner and style that was absolutely similar to the logo of the plaintiff.
Furthermore, the defendants had also been publishing articles in Marathi akin to the HT Media's website www.marathi.hindustantimes.com.
The Hindustan Times, the flagship publication of HT Media, was founded in 1924. and emerges as a natural choice For around 8 million readers, it has been a natural choice for following national and international news. It is also a platform for information, analysis, and entertainment stories.
Similarly, Hindustan, the Hindi daily of Hindustan Media Ventures also traces its origin to the 1930s. For almost a century, the newspapers have established their presence as newspapers with editorial excellence, innovation, and integrity.
Both HT Media Ltd and Hindustan Media Ventures were represented in the court by law firm Saikrishna & Associates.