0

“Trademark Infringement and Injunction Suit: Delhi High Court Grants Permanent Injunction to Heifer International in Trademark Infringement Suit Against Heifer Project India Trust”

Blog, Delhi High Court , , , , ,

Case title: Heifer Project International v. Heifer Project India Trust

Case no.: CS(COMM) 542/2018 & I.As. 8255/2004, 14930/2013

Dated on: 23rd April 2024

Quorum: Justice Sanjeev Narula.

FACTS OF THE CASE

‘Classic Case of Triple Identity’: Heifer Project International (Plaintiff) has filed a lawsuit seeking various legal remedies, including a permanent injunction, against Heifer Project India Trust (Defendant No. 1) and Late Mr. Pran K Bhatt (Defendant No. 2) in his capacity as the Managing Trustee of Defendant No. 1.

The lawsuit aims to protect the intellectual property rights of Heifer Project International, specifically pertaining to the trademark “HEIFER” and associated marks, including the leaping cow device mark and the oval logo. Heifer Project International alleges that the Defendants have infringed upon their intellectual property rights by using trademarks and logos that are deceptively similar or nearly identical to their own marks.

The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to restrain the Defendants from further unauthorized use of the disputed trademarks and logos. Late Mr. Pran K Bhatt, as the Managing Trustee of Heifer Project India Trust, is named as a defendant in the lawsuit, indicating that the legal action extends to both the organization and its responsible representative.

The crux of the legal dispute revolves around the alleged unauthorized use of Heifer Project International’s trademarks and logos by the Defendants, which the Plaintiff contends could lead to consumer confusion and dilution of their brand identity.

Heifer Project International aims to safeguard its brand reputation and prevent any potential damage arising from the Defendants’ unauthorized use of confusingly similar trademarks and logos. This legal action underscores the importance of protecting intellectual property rights in the commercial sphere and the willingness of companies to pursue legal remedies to safeguard their brand assets.

CONTENTIONS OF THE PLAINTIFF

The Plaintiff, Heifer Project International, is an Arkansas non-profit corporation established in 1953, originally under the laws of Indiana, USA. Its mission encompasses alleviating hunger, poverty, and environmental degradation through various sustainable development projects globally, including in India. The Plaintiff has adopted and continuously used distinctive trademarks and logos, such as “Heifer International” and “Heifer Project,” along with associated device marks, since its inception. Despite cancellations of some trademark registrations, the Plaintiff holds copyrights for these creations globally, including in India. Moreover, it has successfully registered several trademarks with the Indian Trademark Office. The extensive promotional activities undertaken by the Plaintiff, both domestically and internationally, have bolstered recognition of its trademarks. In India, the Plaintiff has a significant history of funding, fundraising, and educational services dating back to 1955. While Defendant No. 1, Heifer Project India Trust, was established with Plaintiff’s support in 1992, Plaintiff independently spearheaded initiatives in India prior to that. The “Heifer Project” mark, among others, has become synonymous with Plaintiff’s high-quality ethical programs globally, including in India. Defendant No. 1, a charitable trust, operates under the name ‘Heifer Project – India Trust,’ with Defendant No. 2, Late Mr. Pran Bhatt, serving as Managing Trustee since 1997. Defendant No. 2’s prior professional relationship with Plaintiff ended in 2003 when Plaintiff chose not to renew their contract.

Plaintiff’s Allegation: Infringing Activities and Contractual Breach by The Defendants

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants, despite prior authorization, have engaged in infringing activities and breached contractual obligations. The Plaintiff had granted the Defendant Trust permission to use the “Heifer” and “Heifer Project” names and associated logos under specific conditions, including adhering to Plaintiff’s mission and facilitating its activities in India. However, Defendant No. 2, in his role as Managing Trustee, began deviating from contractual obligations in 2002, particularly regarding reporting and accountability. Despite discussions and assurances, Defendant No. 2 failed to rectify these issues, leading to the non-renewal of his employment contract beyond June 30, 2003. Despite instructions to cease usage of Plaintiff’s marks and return materials, the Defendants continued to use them, prompting a Cease-and-Desist notice in March 2004, to which the Defendants responded defiantly. This continued use of Plaintiff’s marks demonstrates a clear intention to infringe and benefit from Plaintiff’s reputation. Defendant No. 2’s attempt to register the “Heifer” trademark in his name further illustrates dishonesty. Defendants’ actions, including using Plaintiff’s marks on their letterhead, constitute trademark and copyright infringement, unlawfully usurping Plaintiff’s goodwill since 1953.

CONTENTIONS OF THE DEFENDANTS

The Defendants present several defenses in their written statement, aiming to dismiss the suit. They challenge the validity of the lawsuit, arguing that the signatory lacked proper authorization under the Power of Attorney, as advocates cannot serve as ‘Constituted Attorneys.’ Moreover, they assert that the Defendant Trust is a separate entity from the Plaintiff, formed by like-minded individuals and granted FCRA license independently. Despite initial cooperation, discontent arose due to funds allegedly diverted elsewhere.

The Defendants argue that ‘Heifer’ is a common descriptive word, incapable of trademark use by the Plaintiff. They also contend that the Plaintiff falsely claims to work in India on its website and failed to communicate the severed relationship with Defendants to donors. Additionally, they dispute the Plaintiff’s continuous presence in India and the support extended to establish the Defendant Trust. Overall, the Defendants deny any obligation to work in harmony with the Plaintiff as alleged.

ISSUE –

  1. Whether this Hon’ble Court has the territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit? OPD
  2. Whether the plaint has been signed, verified and instituted by a competent person? OPD
  3. Whether the Defendant No. 1 has infringed the trade mark, trade name and corporate name HEIFER of the Plaintiff? OPP
  4. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent injunction or mandatory injunction as prayed for? OPP
  5. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to the relief of rendition of accounts and damages and if so for what period and for what amount? OPP”

COURT’S ANALYSIS AND JUDGEMENT

Issue No. 1: Territorial Jurisdiction

The Plaintiff asserts that this Court holds territorial jurisdiction due to the Defendants’ engagement in business activities in Delhi, where their registered office is located. They argue that the cause of action arose in Delhi, as the Defendants conducted infringing activities within this territory, thus falling under Section 20(c) of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC). Conversely, the Defendants challenge the Court’s jurisdiction, claiming their office was relocated to Noida in 2002, prior to the suit’s institution. However, evidence contradicts this claim. The original letterhead and replies from Defendants, along with bank account details provided during cross-examination, indicate operations in Delhi. Although the Defendants claim to have shifted their office to Noida in 2002, their continued business activities and correspondence in Delhi suggest otherwise. Thus, the infringing use of the trademark “HEIFER” occurred within Delhi’s jurisdiction, supporting the Plaintiff’s claim for territorial jurisdiction. Consequently, Issue No. 1 is resolved in favor of the Plaintiff and against the Defendant Trust.

Issue No. 2: Competency of the Plaintiff’s Representation

The Plaintiff contends that Mr. Pankaj Srivastava, duly authorized under Powers of Attorney dated 20th September 2004 and 31st August 2005, instituted the suit. However, the Defendants challenge Mr. Srivastava’s authority, arguing that he was authorized solely as an advocate, making the suit invalid. The Defendants also raise concerns about Mr. Mahendra Lohani’s involvement. The burden to prove these objections fell on the Defendants, who failed to provide substantial evidence beyond denials.

The Plaintiff’s evidence establishes Ms. Jo Luck’s authority, confirmed during cross-examination, and Mr. Mahendra Lohani’s authorization under Plaintiff’s directive. Despite the Defendants’ objections, there is no legal prohibition against an advocate serving as an attorney for lawsuit initiation. The Power of Attorney clearly authorizes Mr. Srivastava as a constituted attorney, distinct from the Plaintiff’s legal counsel, M/s King Stubb & Kasiva.

Therefore, the Plaintiff adequately demonstrated the suit’s validity, signed, verified, and instituted by a competent person. The court resolves this issue in favor of the Plaintiff and against the Defendant Trust.

Issue No. 3: Infringement of Plaintiff’s Trademark by Defendant Trust

The central concern of this issue is whether Defendant Trust has violated the Plaintiff’s trademark, trade name, and corporate identity, “HEIFER.” The Plaintiff has substantiated its ownership of registered trademarks through certificates of registration and witness testimony, establishing its exclusive rights over the “HEIFER” marks in India. Defendant No. 2’s admission during cross-examination further confirms the Plaintiff’s undisputed ownership and lack of challenge to its trademark rights.

Moreover, the objectives outlined in Defendant Trust’s Trust Deed indicate an understanding of permissive use of the “HEIFER” trademark and logo, implying a relationship between the Plaintiff and Defendant Trust. Despite attempts by Defendant No. 2 to distance himself from the origins of the Defendant Trust’s adoption of the marks, evidence suggests a historical association between the parties.

Defendant Trust’s reliance on an FCRA license does not negate this relationship, especially considering Defendant No. 2’s prior employment with the Plaintiff and the submission of financial reports to Plaintiff. Late Mr. Pran K. Bhatt’s admissions during deposition further weaken Defendant Trust’s position, revealing their lack of ownership over the “HEIFER” marks and their attempt to register the mark in their personal name.

The Defendants’ unauthorized use of Plaintiff’s marks, even after revocation of permission, constitutes infringement and undermines Plaintiff’s intellectual property rights. The Defendants’ actions not only deceive the public but also misrepresent their affiliation with the Plaintiff, causing confusion in the marketplace.

Issue No. 4: Relief of Permanent Injunction

The Plaintiff is entitled to a permanent injunction restraining Defendant Trust and its affiliates from infringing upon the Plaintiff’s trademarks, trade name, and corporate identity, including any similar names or marks.

Issue No. 5: Relief of Rendition of Accounts and Damages

The Plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages along with rendition of accounts. However, under Section 135(1) of the Trademarks Act, one can either claim damages or an account of profits, not both. Since the Plaintiff failed to establish exceptional circumstances warranting rendition of accounts and did not provide empirical evidence of the Defendants’ profits, the court deems this as not a fit case for rendition of accounts. However, considering the deliberate and egregiously illegal conduct of the Defendant Trust, the Plaintiff is entitled to nominal damages and legal costs.

RELIEF:

The suit is decreed in favor of the Plaintiff against the Defendant Trust with the following terms:

  • A permanent injunction is decreed, restraining the Defendant Trust and its affiliates from infringing upon the Plaintiff’s trademarks, including the marks “HEIFER” and associated logos, or any deceptively similar trademarks.
  • A mandatory injunction is decreed, directing the Defendant Trust to:
    1. Hand over all materials bearing the Plaintiff’s trademarks.
    2. Recall and hand over all products, marketing, and promotional materials bearing the infringing marks.
    3. Deliver for destruction all materials bearing the Plaintiff’s marks in their possession or control.
  • The Defendant Trust is directed to pay nominal damages of Rs. 3,00,000/- to the Plaintiff.
  • The Plaintiff is entitled to actual legal costs recoverable from the Defendant Trust, to be filed by May 15, 2024, and subsequently computed by the Taxing Officer.
  • Additionally, a decree sheet is to be drawn up, and the case, along with pending applications, is disposed of.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Judgement Reviewed by – Chiraag K A

Click here to View full Judgement

2

“A Critical Study on The Complexities and Challenges in the Indian Premier League (IPL)”

Articles , , , , , , , , 2

ABSTRACT

The Indian Premier League (IPL) is not only a cricketing extravaganza but also a melting pot of legal complexities, where battles over copyright, broadcasting rights, brand logos, and betting regulations unfold. As one of the most lucrative sporting events globally, the IPL presents a myriad of legal challenges that require careful examination and analysis.
Cricket courses through the veins of every Indian, integral to the nation’s identity. It holds the title of the most beloved outdoor sport in India, captivating enthusiasts across all age groups. Moreover, India stands as a trailblazer in modern cricket, particularly in the inception of T20 cricket, with the Indian Premier League (IPL) pioneering its global rise.

In today’s technologically advanced era, statistical analysis plays a pivotal role in sports. This research paper delves into match outcomes, exploring diverse factors including toss analysis, seasonal match counts, team performances, and the venues hosting these encounters.

INTRODUCTION

IPL & Controversies:

The Indian Premier League (IPL) has remained a stronghold in consolidating its fan base and revenue over the seasons, despite being marred by controversies. From its inception in 2008, the league has witnessed various incidents that have cast shadows on its reputation. One such controversy arose during the inaugural edition when Harbhajan Singh, a prominent spinner, slapped Sreesanth, an opponent pacer, during a customary handshake after a match. Following a thorough investigation, Harbhajan Singh was banned for the rest of the IPL season. This incident, coupled with his previous involvement in controversies such as the ‘monkey gate’ incident with Australian cricketer Andrew Symonds, tarnished the league’s image. The IPL’s response to such behaviour should have been more stringent to maintain the league’s credibility and deter indiscipline among players.

Another contentious issue was the ban on Pakistani players from participating in the league following the 26/11 terror attack. While the ban may have been politically motivated, it hindered the league’s potential popularity in Pakistan and failed to serve as a bridge for improving bilateral relations through cricket, as some advocates believed.

The sacking of Lalit Modi, the ex-chairman of IPL, in 2010 further shook the league’s credibility. Modi was ousted due to multiple charges, including rigging IPL bidding rights and financial irregularities. His removal had implications for the league’s integrity and raised questions about the fairness of matches.

Subsequent years saw the league embroiled in fixing scandals, with allegations of spot-fixing, match-fixing, and betting charges involving players and management personnel. These controversies damaged the league’s reputation and undermined the spirit of fair play.

Furthermore, issues like the ban on Chennai Super Kings (CSK) and Rajasthan Royals over match-fixing scandals in 2015, and instances of poor conduct by players, including altercations and drug-related incidents, have continued to challenge the IPL’s integrity.

Despite its success, the IPL faces the challenge of maintaining its allure amidst growing competition from other cricket leagues worldwide. While it has dominated the cricketing landscape, the emergence of leagues like Australia’s Big Bash League (BBL) and Pakistan Super League (PSL) has increased clutter in the cricketing calendar.

To address this, the IPL must innovate and adapt to changing dynamics while retaining its core values. Moreover, it should prioritize transparency and integrity in its operations to regain public trust. Additionally, the league can explore opportunities to promote diversity and inclusivity by involving players from non-cricketing communities and regions.

Ultimately, the IPL’s ability to navigate controversies, uphold ethical standards, and foster inclusivity will determine its long-term success and significance beyond cricket.

Copyright Battles: Protecting Intellectual Property

One of the foremost legal issues in the IPL revolves around copyright protection. The league is a treasure trove of intellectual property, including broadcasting rights, team logos, player images, and match footage. These assets are fiercely protected by the IPL governing body and individual franchises, who employ various legal mechanisms to safeguard their rights.

Unauthorized broadcasting and streaming of IPL matches are rampant, leading to copyright infringement disputes. The IPL takes stringent measures to combat piracy, including legal action against unauthorized broadcasters and digital platforms. Through cease-and-desist orders and litigation, the league strives to uphold its exclusive broadcasting rights and preserve the value of its content.

Similarly, the use of team logos and player images without authorization constitutes copyright infringement. Franchises invest substantial resources in building their brand identities, and any unauthorized use or misappropriation of their intellectual property is met with swift legal action. From merchandise counterfeiting to unauthorized endorsements, IPL teams remain vigilant in protecting their trademarks and copyrights.

Shielding the IPL with Intellectual Property Rights (IPR)

Sports have been an integral part of human society since ancient times, but it is only in recent years that they have gained widespread recognition and importance on a global scale. It’s evident worldwide that sports, when treated as a full-fledged industry, can contribute significantly to a country’s GDP, ranging from 1 to 5 percent. When discussing sports, one name that undoubtedly dominates the conversation is Cricket. In India, Cricket holds a revered status, often described as a religion due to the passionate following it commands. The sheer popularity of the sport is exemplified by the existence of the Indian Premier League (IPL), which has enjoyed immense success since its inception in 2008.

The economic impact of cricket in India is undeniable, with substantial investments made in teams, merchandise, and infrastructure owing to the nation’s fervent love for the game. The IPL, with its vibrant ecosystem, including a dedicated website offering news, match reports, interviews, and interactive features like pre-match polls, serves as a testament to the sport’s commercial potential. However, without robust intellectual property rights (IPR) protection, this thriving industry is susceptible to exploitation by unauthorized parties, depriving creators of their rightful recognition and rewards.

IPR plays a pivotal role in safeguarding the IPL’s assets, ranging from brand names and team logos to slogans and taglines. By securing trademarks and copyrights, IPL teams ensure that their identities remain protected against infringement and misuse. Moreover, IPR protection enhances the marketability and value of teams, fostering a sense of trust and loyalty among fans.

In the competitive landscape of sports branding, where recognition and reputation are paramount, diligent IP protection is non-negotiable. IPL teams invest significant resources in building and promoting their brand identities, and any unauthorized use or imitation can dilute their uniqueness and erode their market position. Therefore, proactive measures such as trademark registration, copyright protection, and vigilant monitoring of infringements are essential to maintain the integrity and exclusivity of IPL assets.

The IPL serves as a prime example of how sports can transcend mere entertainment to become a thriving industry with far-reaching economic implications. However, to sustain this growth and protect the interests of stakeholders, including teams, sponsors, and fans, robust intellectual property rights enforcement is imperative. By fortifying the IPL with a shield of IPR, stakeholders can ensure that the league continues to thrive as a beacon of sporting excellence and innovation in the global arena.

In today’s era Intellect needs protection too and there is no business that can run successfully without the shelter of intellectual property law. In Cricket, among all the intellectual property rights, i) Copyright ii) Design and iii) Trademark is required to be protected.

Copyright- Copyright refers to the exclusive right in an “original literary work”, to do or authorize the doing of work pertaining to literary, dramatic, musical and artistic works and the producers of cinematograph films and sound recordings Copyright might be used in IPL to protect:

  • Exclusive Photographs of events, teams and athletes.
    • Published results.
    • IPL title track.

Broadcasting Rights: Legal Battles for Market Dominance

The acquisition of broadcasting rights is a fiercely contested battleground in the IPL arena. Media giants vie for exclusive rights to telecast IPL matches, offering lucrative deals to secure a competitive edge. Legal disputes often arise between broadcasters, IPL authorities, and regulatory bodies over licensing agreements, revenue sharing models, and broadcast territories.

In recent years, the emergence of digital streaming platforms has disrupted the traditional broadcasting landscape, further complicating legal matters. Digital rights holders compete with traditional broadcasters for viewership and advertising revenue, leading to complex negotiations and legal wrangling over streaming rights and distribution channels.

Regulatory compliance is another key aspect of broadcasting rights, with authorities imposing strict guidelines to ensure fair competition and consumer protection. Broadcasting regulations, content licensing agreements, and anti-competitive practices are subject to legal scrutiny, requiring broadcasters to navigate a complex legal framework to remain compliant.

Betting and Match-Fixing: Upholding Integrity in Sports

The specter of betting and match-fixing looms large over the IPL, posing significant legal and ethical challenges. Despite stringent regulations and anti-corruption measures, incidents of spot-fixing and illegal betting tarnish the league’s reputation and integrity. Legal authorities collaborate with IPL governing bodies and law enforcement agencies to combat match-fixing, imposing severe penalties on offenders and implementing preventive measures to safeguard the sanctity of the sport.

Regulatory bodies such as the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) and the IPL Anti-Corruption Unit (ACU) play a crucial role in monitoring and enforcing compliance with anti-corruption regulations. Through education, surveillance, and intelligence gathering, these entities strive to maintain a level playing field and preserve the integrity of IPL matches.

The proliferation of online sports betting platforms in India has raised concerns about the vulnerability of Indian bettors to financial losses. The accessibility of these platforms, particularly during the Indian Premier League (IPL) season, coupled with aggressive marketing tactics promising quick wealth, can tempt individuals to place bets exceeding their financial capacity. Unlike established betting markets, many Indian bettors may lack familiarity with the intricacies of sports betting odds and probabilities, leading to impulsive decisions and potential consequences.

Gaurav Bhalla, head of the Technology, Intellectual Property, Data Protection, and Gaming practice areas at Ahlawat & Associates, emphasized the need for effective government intervention to differentiate between betting platforms and games of skill. Bhalla suggested the establishment of a regulated state-run lottery, akin to models implemented in some states, to mitigate the risks associated with online betting.

However, the legality of online betting in India remains a complex issue. Bhalla highlighted the varying legal frameworks across states, with some states imposing fines and imprisonment for betting activities, while others regulate online gaming platforms offering games of skill. The absence of uniform regulation leaves users navigating legal uncertainties, with implications varying depending on their geographical location.

Despite legal ambiguities, the popularity of online betting platforms in India continues to soar, fueled by marketing strategies and sponsorship deals with prominent sports teams. Bhalla attributed the operation of these platforms to legal loopholes, particularly under The Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, which lacks regulatory oversight. The absence of self-regulatory bodies authorized to determine the legality of online gaming platforms contributes to the widespread marketing of these services.

Regarding sports betting legislation in India, Bhalla clarified that while no specific law addresses sports betting, existing central and state legislations govern aspects of betting and gambling. Some laws impose complete bans, while others outline regulatory mechanisms for licensed operation. Bhalla advised users to exercise caution and conduct due diligence when engaging with online platforms to avoid potential scams. Similarly, he recommended legal consultation for companies intending to establish online betting platforms to navigate regulatory complexities effectively.

Case laws:

Comparison and Risk Analysis in Trademark Infringement Cases

Investment and risk are intrinsic to any business, particularly in the realm of iconic brands where stakes are high. Successful businesses thrive on calculated risk management, and astute entrepreneurs prioritize the protection of intellectual property rights as a fundamental aspect of risk mitigation.

In the case of PayPal vs. PayTM, PayPal alleges trademark infringement by PayTM, asserting that PayTM has capitalized on PayPal’s brand recognition and market value, thereby engaging in passing off. While such claims are common among complainants, this case presents a unique dynamic. PayTM has achieved widespread recognition among everyday consumers, including workers, grocers, and Uber drivers, who frequently encounter the brand in their daily lives. In contrast, PayPal’s presence in India has been primarily limited to eBay shoppers, freelancers, and IT professionals with global exposure.

The timing of PayPal’s legal action is crucial. Had PayPal initiated a trademark infringement lawsuit before Paytm’s meteoric rise to household name status, the outcome might have been more favorable. However, given Paytm’s entrenched position in the market, PayPal faces an uphill battle. Despite PayPal’s global stature, Paytm’s dominance in the Indian market significantly strengthens its position in any legal dispute.

The scenario underscores the importance of timely and strategic legal action in safeguarding trademark rights. For IPL, a brand of epic proportions, similar risks exist. Third parties may attempt to exploit the IPL brand by selling counterfeit products or providing unauthorized services. Without robust trademark registration, the original brand owner would struggle to defend its rights in court or demonstrate financial harm resulting from third-party infringement.

In essence, proactive trademark registration and vigilant enforcement are essential for protecting the integrity and value of iconic brands like IPL. By preemptively addressing potential infringement issues and establishing legal precedence, brand owners can safeguard their interests and preserve their market position against unauthorized exploitation.

CRITICAL ANALYSIS

IPL, akin to the English Premier League (EPL) in football, has carved its own niche in the cricketing arena. It seamlessly integrates sports and entertainment, offering cricket enthusiasts a captivating platform. Notably, IPL has emerged as a springboard for young, talented players who aspire to pursue their passion and convert their skills into lucrative opportunities, benefiting both themselves and investors alike.

The evolving landscape of intellectual property rights (IPR) in sports has prompted the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) and IPL team owners to prioritize meticulous organization and management of the tournament. Despite the strides made in protecting intellectual property, external factors such as betting have cast a shadow over the league’s integrity. Instances involving prominent personalities like Raj Kundra, Vindu Dara Singh, and Arbaaz Khan, as well as player controversies like the lifetime ban imposed on Sreesanth by the BCCI, underscore the challenges faced by IPL stakeholders.

Recognizing the significance of IPL protection in sports, the author underscores the pivotal role of IP registration as a cornerstone of business and franchise safeguarding. The IPL’s website terms and conditions reflect BCCI’s commitment to ensuring the protection of IPL franchises, highlighting the proactive measures undertaken to uphold the league’s integrity and interests.

AFTERMATH

The Indian Premier League (IPL) has undeniably transformed the cricketing landscape, becoming a leader in revenue generation and granting significant influence to the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI). Priyadharshi (2015) emphasizes the necessity for innovation to stay ahead of the increasing competition in cricket. With the emergence of various foreign leagues such as Cricket Australia’s Big Bash League (BBL), Pakistan Super League (PSL), England’s NatWest T20 Blast, West Indies CPL, and Bangladesh’s BPL, viewers now have numerous options, leading to a cluttered cricketing calendar.

While the IPL maintains an edge over other leagues, the proliferation of alternatives poses a challenge. Each league has its unique impact on the cricketing world. For instance, the BBL, initiated in 2011, mirrors the IPL’s format and success. Following IPL’s global triumph, BCCI’s sway in cricketing decisions has surged, eclipsing the dominance of traditional cricketing boards like those of Australia and England. Witnessing the triumph of IPL and BBL, other cricketing nations have initiated their leagues. Notably, the West Indies established the Caribbean Premier League (CPL) in 2013, while England launched the professional T20 Blast in 2014, aiming to compete with IPL’s global influence.

Despite IPL’s success, sustaining its allure amidst the influx of cricketing leagues remains a formidable task. In response, leagues like Abu Dhabi T10, featuring shorter matches, have emerged. The challenge for IPL lies in preserving its brand power amid this clutter. Notably, renowned players like Eoin Morgan, Andre Russell, Shane Watson, and Keiron Pollard have made their mark globally. However, IPL’s failure to provide fair opportunities to players like Yuvraj Singh raises concerns about retaining stalwarts post-retirement.

Similar to WWE’s experience, wherein the departure of iconic wrestlers led to a decline in its allure, IPL must be vigilant against such threats from foreign leagues. Retaining stalwarts’ post-retirement through coaching or administrative roles can enhance the league’s brand image and maintain fan engagement. By adopting strategic marketing implications, IPL can ensure continued fan loyalty and relevance in the global cricketing landscape.

CONCLUSION:

In conclusion, the IPL is not just a cricketing spectacle but also a legal labyrinth fraught with complexities and challenges. From copyright battles and broadcasting rights disputes to betting regulations and match-fixing concerns, the league grapples with a myriad of legal issues that require vigilant oversight and proactive measures. Through collaboration between IPL authorities, legal experts, and regulatory bodies, the league endeavours to uphold the rule of law, protect intellectual property rights, and preserve the integrity of the sport. As the IPL continues to evolve, legal frameworks will need to adapt to emerging challenges, ensuring that cricket’s crown jewel remains a beacon of excellence and integrity in the global sporting arena.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written by- Chiraag K A

References:

[1] Insights of IPL: 2008 to 2020 and why it is interesting (Conference Paper · August 2021) &

[2] www.iplt20.com & www.icc-cricket.com

[3] TATA Indian Premier League 2023 Brand and Content Protection Guidelines Public Advisory Document.

[4] https://www.abacademies.org/abstract/a-critical-study-on-indian-premier-league-ipl-and-its-marketing-implication-to-overcome-the-challenges-of-controversy-cl-9576.html

[5] https://blog.ipleaders.in/intellectual-property-rights-in-ipl/

[6] https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-274-shield-of-ipr-around-ipl.html

[7] https://brandequity.economictimes.indiatimes.com/blog/ipl-media-rights-a-true-win-win-for-all/92480289

[8] How sustainable is the strategy of the Indian Premier League – IPL? A critical review of 10 key issues that impact the IPL Strategy by Shashi Kapada

[9] IPL: Birth of Cricketainment A case study on sports marketing by Board of Control for Cricket in India

[10] https://www.wikipedia.org/

0

Bombay High Court’s Landmark Wynk vs. Tips Judgment: A Game-Changer for Digital Music Platforms

Blog , , ,

Wynk Ltd v. Tips Industries Ltd

CORAM : G.S.Patel & Gauri Godse, JJ 

Decided on: 20th October 2022

Introduction

The Bombay High Court ruled down a major judgement in the case of Wynk vs. Tips, which has enormous consequences for the Indian music business. The court found in favour of Tips Industries Limited, a well-known record label, stating that online music streaming and downloading platforms are not eligible for reduced obligatory licences under Section 31D of the Copyrights Act. This blog will provide a description of this landmark decision and its potential implications for the music streaming business.

Facts of the case

Wynk filed a claim under Section 31D of the Copyright Act of 1957. Wynk acknowledged that the Copyright Board/Intellectual Property Appellate Board (which was still in existence at the time) had not yet established rates. Acknowledging this, Wynk consented to pay the first installment of royalties of Rs.10 lakhs. It appears to have concluded (on its own, by all accounts) that royalty should be paid at 10 paise per stream, totaling approximately Rs.1.41 crores from September 2016 to November 2017. Wynk issued Tips an demand draft for this sum.

Courts analysis and Decision

The Wynk vs. Tips case revolved around accusations of copyright infringement filed by Tips Industries against Wynk Music, a famous music streaming network operated by Bharti Airtel. Tips Industries claimed that Wynk Music was selling copyrighted music without legal licencing and demanded monetary damages for copyright infringement. The court had to decide whether Wynk Music was entitled to the benefits of a discounted compulsory licence under Section 31D.

The Copyright Act’s Section 31D addresses the statutory licencing of audio recordings and musical compositions for broadcasting organisations. It enables broadcasting organisations to make sound recordings and musical works available to the public for a charge without the need for specific licences from copyright holders. This provision aims to make it simpler for broadcasting organisations to use copyrighted music and sound recordings while additionally guaranteeing that copyright holders are fairly compensated.

The following are the key findings and major impact to the industry:

  • No Discounted obligatory Licences: The court ruled that online music streaming and downloading sites, such as Wynk Music, are not qualified for discounted obligatory licences under Section 31D of the Copyrights Act. Section 31D allows broadcasters to communicate copyrighted works to the public for a price without obtaining individual licences, but it excludes internet platforms from this benefit.
  • The importance of licencing agreements between music streaming companies and copyright owners was emphasised by the court. It was noted that Wynk Music had not obtained the required licences for the music it was offering, and hence could not benefit from Section 31D.
  • Copyright Protection for owners: The Bombay High Court’s decision strengthens the rights of copyright holders, such as record companies like Tips Industries. It states that online music platforms must secure adequate licences and are not permitted to use cheap compulsory licences to decrease their licencing expenses.
  • Compliance with Licencing Agreements: This judgement emphasises the significance of strict compliance with licencing agreements for music streaming companies. It serves as a reminder that platforms must follow legal standards and get licences in order to prevent claims of copyright infringement.
  • The decision may cause changes in the business models of streaming music services in India. Platforms may need to rethink their music acquisition and licencing policies, which could have an influence on their activities and price structures.

 

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written by: Shivanshi Singh

 

Click here to view your Judgement

0

The Gujarat High Court granted the petitioners’ request to quash the FIR and charge sheet, as the allegations of copyright and trademark infringement were deemed baseless and not applicable.

Blog , , ,

Case- State Of Gujarat vs Kantilal Narshibhai Bhimani   (R/CR.MA/1239/2019)
Decided on: 23rd June 2023

CORAM: HON’BLE Justice Hemant M. Prachchhak
Introduction

The learned Additional Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Jamnagar, granted bail to the accused on September 29, 2018, in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 1576 of 2018. The State of Gujarat, represented by the learned APP (Assistant Public Prosecutor), is now seeking the cancellation of this bail, arguing that the order granting bail is illegal and arbitrary.

Facts of the Case

The defence counsel, representing the accused respondent, opposes the application and argues that the trial court considered all the relevant factors and evidence before granting bail.

The document also references several legal precedents related to the cancellation of bail. It mentions that cancellation of bail requires compelling and overwhelming circumstances, such as interference with the administration of justice, evasion of justice, abuse of the concession of bail, possibility of the accused absconding, likelihood of misuse of bail, or tampering with evidence or threatening witnesses.

Judgement

The judge reviewing the application states that after evaluating the impugned order and considering the arguments from both sides, there appear to be no overwhelming circumstances or breaches of bail conditions reported against the accused. Additionally, the investigating officer has not filed a chargesheet, and the trial could not proceed further. Considering these factors, the judge opines that the trial court rightly exercised its power under Section 438 of the Code.

The judge further emphasises the distinction between considering a bail application and deciding on a petition for its cancellation. The judge cites various legal precedents to emphasise that cancellation of bail requires compelling and overwhelming circumstances and should not be done mechanically.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has over 20 years of experience in various sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into the category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written by- Aadit Shah

Click to view judgement

0

Delhi High court Dismissed the petition filed by TV 18 Broadcast, seeking Interim injunction.

Blog , , , , , , , , ,

Title: TV 18 BROADCAST LTD. Vs BENNETT, COLEMAN AND COMPANY LIMITED

Judgement Delivered: 04.07.23

+ CS(COMM) 279/2022

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL

Introduction

Delhi High Court dismissed the petition filed by TV 18 Broadcast, seeking interim injunction on the use of term “Bhaiyaji” under class 41.

Facts of the case

The plaintiff is a member of the largest media and entertainment conglomerate in India, the Network18 group. The plaintiff’s business operations include managing a number of television networks in India, including CNBC-TV18, CNN News18, and News18, which broadcast in fifteen different languages and 26 states across the nation. Additionally, the company operates entertainment and informational media channels as Colours, Nickelodeon, MTV, and History TV18. In addition of creating TV shows, the plaintiff is also involved in creating TV programme and one such program is named as “Bhaiyaji Kahin” and they adopted the device mark for the same with effect from 29th December 2016 under classes 38 and 41, Since then the show aired 1200 episodes and generated a revenue of Rs.16,26,42,000 alone in the year 2021-22.

The defendants used the trademark to launch “Bhaiya Ji Superhit” in January 2022, which was intended to use comedy and satire to highlight newsworthy topics. Due to the resemblance of the two parties’ trademarks and the nature of their respective shows, the plaintiff sent the defendant with a cease-and-desist letter dated January 10, 2022, ordering them to stop using the contested mark “Bhaiya Ji Superhit” among other things.

However, the defendant asked the plaintiff to drop the stop and desist letter, pointing out that there was no similarity between the defendant’s programme format and the plaintiff’s, nor was there any chance that the impugned mark and the plaintiff’s trademark would be confused.

Reiterating the arguments made in its initial cease and desist letter, the plaintiff once more sent the defendant a legal notice on February 24, 2022. The accusations mentioned in the notifications, however, were disputed by the defendant.

In order to prevent the defendant from violating the plaintiff’s trademarks, passing off, and other ancillary reliefs, the plaintiff brought the current lawsuit.

Analysis and Decision of the Court

The High Court held that, the “Bhaiyaji Kahin” mark used by the plaintiff is registered under classes 38 and 41. In contrast to the registration under class 38, the registration under class 41 contains a disclaimer about the term “Bhaiyaji”. There is no question in my opinion after reading the aforementioned classification that television shows, particularly those relating to news, belong in class 41 and not class 38. In reality, there is a blatant exclusion for television broadcasts in class 38. Telecommunication services, such as television transmission, are also included in class 38.

Therefore, names of television stations like Times Now, CNN News18, News18, and similar ones will be included in class 38. The subject of class 41 would be the titles of the shows that are shown on these networks. Therefore, class 41 would be the applicable class for finding infringement.

The name “Bhaiyaji” is the only commonality between the plaintiff’s and defendant’s marks. The terms “Kahin” used by the plaintiff and “Superhit” used by the defendant are not interchangeable. The plaintiff cannot prevent the defendant from using the term “Bhaiyaji” due to the disclaimer about the term under class 41. This is also made explicit by Section 28(2) of the Trade Marks Act, which states that all restrictions and conditions that are a part of the registration granted apply to the exclusive right to use a trademark.

In spite of this, the term “Bhaiyaji” is a well-known pronoun in several Indian states, such as Uttar Pradesh and Bihar, and it literally means “brother”; as a result, it lacks distinction. The defendant has also provided enough evidence to the court to demonstrate that the term “Bhaiyaji” is commonly used in trade in India and is used in a number of radio and television broadcasts. Thus, in my initial assessment, “Bhaiyaji” is a generic phrase that is in common usage, and nobody has the exclusive right to use such generic words. According to Section 17 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, the plaintiff is not entitled to exclusive rights over the mark “Bhaiyaji” in light of the aforementioned.

Attention has also been brought to the Plaintiff’s response to the examination report of the registry where they had applied for registration of the mark “Bhaiyaji Kahin” under class 41, while distinguishing it from “Bhaiya Aisa Kyun”, the Plaintiff has clearly taken a stand that their mark is not similar to the said mark and it is to be compared as a whole and cannot be dissected thus they cannot take contrary view on using of term “Bhaiyaji” by the defendant, it is not permissible to approbate and reprobate.

Plaintiff has placed reliance on Shree Nath Heritage Liquor Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s. Allied Blender & Distillers Pvt. Ltd., 2015 OnLine Del 10164,  wherein the court upheld the interim order of the division bench in respect of the defendant using the mark “Collector’s Choice” as against the plaintiff’s registered mark of “Officer’s Choice” in respect of alcoholic beverages, but this reliance is flawed as the dominant word was officer and their was no disclaimer but in the present case the dominant word is “Bhaiyaji” and there is a disclaimer present thus the aforesaid judgement does not advance the case of the plaintiff. Aditya Birla Fashion & Retail Ltd. v. Under Armour, Inc., 2023 SCC OnLine Del 2269, there was no disclaimer included in the registration issued in favour of the plaintiff as there is in the current case. as a result, the abovementioned judgement does not strengthen the plaintiff’s case.

Also, regarding the format of the show, the shows are quite different from each other both in terms of nature as well as the format. Therefore, in my prima facie view there is no likelihood of confusion between the two television shows. In view of the discussion above, the plaintiff has failed to make out a prima facie case for grant of interim injunction. Accordingly, the application is dismissed.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written By – Shreyanshu Gupta

Click to review the judgement