Delhi High Court Refuses To Stay Feature Film 'Haathi Mere Saathi' Release

The multinational pharmaceutical company (through ) sought stay on release via any media platform such as cinemas, OTT, etc., alleging that the movie disparages Plaintiff's registered trademark/brand 'DRL'.

A single bench of Justice Sanjeev Narula on Tuesday (23rd March) held that no prima facie material was shown and that the Plaintiff could not make out a case of the irreparable loss that it would suffer if the movie is released.

The film has been directed by Prabhu Solomon and it features Rana Daggubati, Pulkit Samrat, Shriya Pilgaonkar, Zoya Hussain, and Vishnu Vishal.

[NOTE: The release of 'Haathi Mere Saathi' has been postponed citing the increased cases of COVID-19. However, Kaadan (Tamil) and Aranya (Telugu) versions will release as scheduled.]

The grievance of the plaintiff

At the outset, Plaintiff submitted that it's impeccable reputation is at the core of its existence and that a large segment of the population knows it's business as 'DRL'.

The plaintiff drew the attention of the Court to the registration of the word mark 'DRL' under Trade Mark Registration No. 1529767 dated 9^th February, 2007

As alleged by the plaintiff, it got to know in February 2020 that the Defendant media house (Eros International Media Limited) was using/portraying the Plaintiff's wordmark/brand 'DRL' in the trailer video of the movie, as part of the name 'DRL Township', in a derogatory/disparaging manner.

The plaintiff alleged that the plot of the movie centers on the destruction of an elephant corridor and habitat, by a corporate entity named 'DRL', for the construction of its 'DRL Township'.

In this backdrop, Plaintiff was aggrieved that such unauthorized use of 'DRL' as part of the movie plot, as one acting for commercial exploitation and gain with no regard to the environment, and show its brand in a poor light, was purposeful, mala fide, and intended to the detriment the distinctive character, reputation, and goodwill of the plaintiff's brand.

To substantiate its contention that the said mark has acquired distinctiveness and is associated only with the Plaintiff, the plaintiff referred to news articles, results from Google search, Internet extracts etc.

"The entire plot of the movie seems to be a struggle of the protagonist against 'DRL', where the entity, represented by these letters, is shown in extremely poor right…the movie is bound to leave the audience with a clear message that 'DRL' is an irresponsible and reprehensible company, which is entirely to the peril of the Plaintiff", alleged the plaintiff.

Court's observations

At the outset, the Court noted that the application for registration of word mark DRL was under the 'proposed to be used' category and that the Plaintiff failed to show the use of the registered mark from the date of the application of the trademark which i.e. 9^th February, 2007 till the filing of the suit.

Further, the Court held that for the limited purpose of deciding the instant application for an injunction, in the absence of any material placed on record, it cannot be said that such an acronym has acquired distinctiveness and is associated only with the Plaintiff

"Prima facie, the Court is unable to opine that there is any tangible connection or direct association of the acronym 'DRL' with the Plaintiff's trademark/companies/brand" held the Court.

Further, noting that the fictitious entity of Drishti Refineries Limited (as used in the movie) is involved in the business of setting up refinery plants, which is completely distinct from that of the Plaintiff, the Court said,

"The usage of acronym 'DRL', has no co-relation with the Plaintiff's primary trademark – Dr. Reddy and/or its body corporate i.e. Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Ltd."

Therefore, the Court observed that a prima facie case was not made out in favor of the Plaintiff, to suggest that the average movie-goer would associate the name 'DRL Township' in the movie as a reference to the Plaintiff's brand or business.

Significantly, the Court observed that while it was indeed unfortunate, that the acronym of the fictional corporate entity fashioned by the Defendants in their movie, coincides with the acronym of the Plaintiff's corporate name, however, this could not, in itself be the sole ground for granting an injunction against the release of a certified feature film.

Lastly, noting that the plaintiff approached the High Court after nearly one year of first coming into the knowledge of the infringing action, the Court said,

"In the opinion of this Court, on the ground of delay itself, the Plaintiff would be disentitled to the relief of injunction as sought for in the present application."

Thus, dismissing the suit, the Court said that the Plaintiff does not have a prima facie case in its favour, the balance of convenience is in favour of Defendants and not in favour of the Plaintiff, however, the Court added that the Plaintiff could always, in such circumstances, if it succeeds in establishing its case in trial, cement its claims for compensation and damages.

Case title - Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Limited v. Eros International Media Limited And Anr [CS(COMM) 126/2021]

Click Here To Download Order

Read Order