Aaj Tak Trademark Infringement Suit: Delhi High Court Grants Ex-Parte Ad-Interim Injunction Against 'AAJ TAK GURGAON'

The Delhi High Court has granted ex-parte ad-interim injunction in a trademark infringement suit filed by news channel "AAJ TAK", a part of India Today Group, against "AAJ TAK GURGAON".

Justice Jyoti Singh restrained the defendants to use the trademark 'AAJ TAK' in relation to any goods or services including their print, digital newspaper, publication, website, social media and content sharing platforms including Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Instagram, LinkedIn, and any other location on the internet, till the next date of hearing.

The Court also directed that the domain name registration of the impugned domain name 'aajtakgurgaon.com' be suspended.

It also directed that the channel or profile or pages using the impugned AAJ TAK marks or any other trade mark identical or deceptively similar to the Plaintiffs' trademarks on their respective social media platforms be taken down or deleted.

It was the plaintiffs' case that it first came across Defendants No. 1 and 2's mark "AAJ TAK GURGAON" in December 2021, on a YouTube channel titled "AAJ TAK GURGAON" accessible at featured hosting a number of videos disseminating news.

Upon further search, Plaintiffs also learnt of additional social media profiles on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram, all of which use the same impugned mark "AAJ TAK GURGAON". All the social media profiles, in addition to being titled under the impugned mark "AAJ TAK GURGAON", also used and displayed the other impugned marks.

It was thus argued that in view of the deceptive similarity of the said impugned marks, Plaintiffs issued a cease and desist notice to Defendant No.1. Plaintiffs then received a reply wherein Defendant No.1 refused to refrain from infringing activities and unauthorised use of the impugned marks.

It was further averred that Defendant No.1's web portal, accessible at 'www.aajtakgurgaon.com' was a digital news disseminating platform wherein news updates not only limited to Gurugram but to the whole of India were made available in addition to third party advertisements and commercials. It was also added Defendant No.1 was also engaged in publishing a newspaper which had registration with the Registrar of Newspapers for India.

It was argued by the plaintiff that Defendants No.1 and 2 had adopted the deceptively similar impugned marks for services identical to those offered by the Plaintiffs being journalism, news reporting, news publication and news telecast.

It was added that despite being put to notice in December 2021, Defendants No.1 and 2 were openly and blatantly using the impugned marks and a comparative of the Plaintiffs' marks as well as the impugned marks, showed a clear case of infringement.

"Having heard the learned counsel for the Plaintiffs, this Court is of the view that Plaintiffs have made out a prima facie case for grant of ex parte ad-interim injunction. Balance of convenience lies in favour of the Plaintiffs and they are likely to suffer irreparable harm in case the injunction, as prayed for, is not granted," the Court observed.

While issuing directions to the defendants restraining them from using the impugned trademark, the Court directed that the Plaintiffs shall comply with the provisions of Order 39 Rule 3 CPC within five days.

Case Title: LIVING MEDIA INDIA LIMITED & ANR. v. SATBIR BHARDWAJ & ORS.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 337

Click Here To Read Order