Delhi High Court grants an injunction to Dish TV in opposition to Doordarshan to prevent the latter from using the word ‘DISH’ for its services. The Single Bench of Justice Sahay Endlaw refused to accept the defendant’s claim of public Juris and termed the utilization of a prima facie infringement case.
In the present case, the plaintiff instituted a match for an everlasting injunction restraining the defendant from infringing the plaintiff’s alternate mark, ‘DISHTV,’ from passing off the defendant’s offerings as that of the plaintiff through the adoption of the name/mark ‘FREE DISH,’ and for ancillary reliefs.
The plaintiff contended that they first coined the phrase ‘DISH’, which is a quintessential and distinct detail of their trademark. Further, the defendant has also followed a deceptive logo like the plaintiff’s since the stylized logo includes the tool of a dish, which is also a fundamental and prominent part of the plaintiff’s” s ‘DISHTV’ logo.
On the other hand, the defendants denied any opportunity of deception and argued that ‘DISH’ is a public Juris and nobody can declare unique property to it. Moreover, underneath Section 17 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, registration of a trademark confers rights within the mark as an entire and not in part or fragments of the mark; the plaintiff having elected to brand its product with an accepted word, ‘DISH,’ any other character coming into the marketplace might have the right to use the stated term to become aware of the product in query and the plaintiff if had no longer preferred so, need to have branded its product with a unique call.
The court opined that when the defendant itself turned into capable of providing the stated provider without the usage of the phrase, ‘DISH’ from 2004 to 2014 and while others are also presenting equal offerings as the plaintiff and the defendant, without using the word ‘DI,”, it isn’t always open to the defendant to mention that the usage of the word ‘DISH’ by way of the defendant is indicative of the kind of characteristic of services being rendered by way of the defendant. Thus, none of the defenses underneath Section 30 of the Trade Marks Act are to be had by the defendant.
The court docket also rejected the defendant’s claim of public Juris by noting that ‘Dish’ is not time-honored to DTH carrier or public Juris and not unusual to the exchange of DTH provider for it to be stated that adoption thereof by the plaintiff for its DTH offerings can’t save you the others providing equal service from the use of the identical for the cause of its being critical for them for describing their service.
Finally, the courtroom relied upon the ratio laid down in United Biotech Pvt. Ltd. and Laxmikant V. Patel, where they took a look at what applied became of use by way of the defendant of a prominent part of the plaintiff’s registered trademark to hold that the mark used by the respondent does make a prima facie case of infringement. It opined that for the consumers/subscribers to shape an opinion, the plaintiff, in association with Doordarshan, supplies sure loose channels and can bring about the clients/subscribers wanting the paid channels of the plaintiff to be telecast free.
While granting the injunction to the plaintiff, the court docket also criticized the defendant for making inordinate delays in taking any action, notwithstanding repeated complaints made by the plaintiff. It becomes dismaying that the defendant, a public region organization, indulged in using every other’s trademark and refused to behave reasonably, no matter how the plaintiff objected to it. The equal is not anticipated of a public sector enterprise, which, according to the Government’s proclaimed litigation coverage, isn’t to be indulged in.
