Duped Innocent Members Of Public And Prospective Participants Of Plaintiff's Beauty Pageants- Delhi HC In Miss India TM Infringement Suit
While granting relief of injunction to the Plaintiff, the Delhi High Court has held that the Defendants duped the innocent members of the public and prospective participants Of Plaintiff's beauty pageants. In this context, the Bench of Justice Sanjiv Narula observed -
"Court has perused the documents and plaint which indicates thatv Defendants No. 1 and 2 have been dishonestly using Plaintiffs’ mark. Defendants No. 1 and 2 use of Plaintiffs’ registered word mark “MISS INDIA” in the impugned title of the beauty pageants, their websites and social media account was with the sole intent of misrepresenting an association with Plaintiffs to dupe innocent members of the public and prospective participants of Plaintiffs’ beauty pageants."
Noticing that Defendant intended to gain benefit out of Plaintiff’s goodwill and reputation and hence, Plaintiff has a right to be granted a permanent injunction for restraining further infringement, the Bench also observed that “They have failed to file a written statement with statutory period of 120 days and their right to do so stands closed. Defendants No. 1 and 2 have neither controverted Plaintiffs’ assertions nor produced any evidence to contradict the same. Thus, in the opinion of the Court, no purpose would be served by directing Plaintiffs to lead ex-parte evidence. For the forgoing reasons, Plaintiffs are entitled to a judgment in accordance with Order VIII Rule 10 of CPC, 1908.”
Advocate Mamta Jha appeared for the Plaintiffs and the Defendants proceeded ex-parte.
In the brief background, the Plaintiffs have been using and promoting MISS INDIA pageant and its associated events since 1964 which has enabled them to acquire goodwill and reputation, and create a mark internationally. They also have a registered trademark over MISS INDIA and its formative classes and other classes in 38 and 41. It is the case of Plaintiffs that the Defendants have been organizing similar beauty pageants under the mark ‘Miss India World’ and ‘Taj Miss India/Miss India Taj’. They also attached screenshot of a YouTube video in which a winner associated with Defendant’s pageant in her speech states that she has drawn inspiration from Manushi Chillar, who is Miss India winner of the Plaintiff’s pageant. Accordingly, an ex-parte ad interim injunction was passed in favour of Plaintiff in 2019, which directed the Defendants to block their websites using a similar name. Subsequently, vide another order in 2019 an undertaking was taken from the Defendant that they would transfer the website “www.tajmissindia” to the Plaintiffs.
Upon perusal of the facts presented by the plaintiffs, the High Court found that as per the affidavit of service presented by the Plaintiffs, the notice stood successfully served, and hence, failure to file a written statements within the statutory period of 120 days and no sign of production of evidence on part of the Defendants would enable the Plaintiff to judgment in accordance with Order VIII Rule 10 of CPC.
The Bench also observed that the Plaintiff have been organizing beauty pageants under the trademark since 1964 and have built a strong goodwill and reputation, hence, using of similar mark by the Defendants indicates that they had the sole intent of misrepresenting their association with that of the Plaintiffs in the mind of innocent viewers.
Highlighting that use of such similar/identical mark by the Defendants is bound to create confusion and result in irreparable harm to Plaintiff’s business, goodwill and reputation, the Bench elucidated that “impugned pageants which are not connected to the Plaintiffs in any manner, are bound to create confusion and deception for the public, prospective participants and even sponsors, resulting in irreparable harm to Plaintiffs’ business, and well-established goodwill and reputation.”
Accordingly, the Bench concluded that such acts of the Defendants amount to infringement and passing off the Plaintiff’s mark, and passed decree in favour of the Plaintiff while directing to remunerate the Plaintiff of actual costs incurred by it in the suit.
Cause Title: Bennet, Coleman and Company Limited, and Anr. v. Planet Media Groups and Ors. [Neutral Citation: 2023: DHC: 3334]
Click here to read/download Judgment
