Delhi High Court: A suit was filed by Entertainment Network India Limited (plaintiff) seeking permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from infringing the plaintiff’s intellectual property rights, including, the plaintiff’s copyright in cinematograph and dramatic works, including, but not limited to the plaintiff’s rights in the show ‘What Women Want’ (All Five Seasons) produced by the plaintiff (Show), as well as all future seasons and any derivative works associated therewith, for which the plaintiff shall retain sole and exclusive ownership unless such ownership rights are expressly conferred or assigned to another party by the plaintiff. Mini Pushkarna, J., held that the plaintiff demonstrated a prima facie case for grant of injunction and in case no ex-parte ad-interim injunction is granted, the plaintiff will suffer an irreparable loss.
The plaintiff, one of India’s most reputed radio broadcasters and a subsidiary of Bennett, Coleman & Co. Ltd., produces and broadcasts audio and audio-visual content under renowned brand names such as ‘Mirchi®,’ ‘Gaana®,’ and ‘Radio Mirchi.’ The plaintiff conceptualized and produced the show “What Women Want” (the “Show”) and claimed exclusive ownership over all intellectual property rights associated with it. The plaintiff had entered into production agreements with Seventeen Events Private Limited and Dream Vaults Media Private Limited for Season 5 of the Show, specifying that the plaintiff retained all ownership rights, including copyrights, trademarks, and derivative rights.
To promote the Show, the plaintiff collaborated with various third parties, including the defendant, which is known for publishing entertainment-related content across platforms such as Instagram and YouTube under the brand name ‘Miss Malini.’ As part of the promotional efforts, the defendant’s representative conducted an interview with Kareena Kapoor Khan on the sets of the Show on 26-08-2024. It was mutually agreed that the defendant would share the interview on its platforms only after obtaining prior approval from the plaintiff. The plaintiff’s logo (‘Mirchi®’) was to feature prominently, and the defendant was prohibited from using its own logo (‘Miss Malini’) in the video content.
Despite these agreements, the plaintiff discovered that the defendant had unilaterally uploaded a short-form video of the interview on Instagram on 16-10-2024, without seeking prior approval. The video prominently displayed the ‘Miss Malini’ logo while obscuring the plaintiff’s ‘Mirchi®’ logo, thereby misrepresenting the content as the defendant’s exclusive property. Following this, the plaintiff issued a cease-and-desist notice to the defendant on the same day. However, the defendant uploaded a long-form version of the interview on YouTube within 35 minutes of receiving the notice. This video also displayed the ‘Miss Malini’ logo and attributed production credit to the defendant’s brand.
Subsequently, the plaintiff initiated copyright strikes against the infringing content on YouTube. While the content was temporarily taken down, the defendant reposted it. The defendant’s response to the cease-and-desist notice, dated 22-10-2024, included baseless justifications and did not refute the plaintiff’s ownership of the copyright. The plaintiff’s rejoinder emphasized the lack of any permission granted for the use of the ‘Miss Malini’ logo and reiterated demands for compliance with the cease-and-desist notice. The defendant later expressed willingness to remove the Instagram video but attached a precondition that the plaintiff withdraws the copyright strike on YouTube, which the plaintiff rejected.
The plaintiff contended that the defendant’s actions constituted blatant copyright infringement and a violation of the agreed terms of use. It argued that the defendant had willfully misrepresented the interview as its own content by affixing its logo, thereby damaging the plaintiff’s brand reputation and goodwill. The plaintiff submitted that the defendant’s unauthorized actions disrupted the promotional strategy for the Show and undermined its exclusive ownership rights.
The defendant, in its defense, attempted to justify its actions by asserting that it had acted in good faith. However, it did not dispute the plaintiff’s ownership of the copyright. Instead, the defendant sought to shift responsibility onto the plaintiff, claiming that any perceived infringement was unintentional and arose due to miscommunication.
The Court meticulously analyzed the factual and legal aspects of the case and noted that the plaintiff had demonstrated clear ownership of the intellectual property associated with the Show through production agreements and other evidence. The Court observed that the defendant had acted in blatant disregard of the mutually agreed terms by uploading the content without approval and affixing its logo to the videos. The Court held such actions were deliberate attempts to misappropriate the plaintiff’s intellectual property for commercial gain.
The Court further criticized the defendant for failing to remove the infringing content despite multiple notices and for attaching unreasonable preconditions to comply with the plaintiff’s demands. It emphasized that the defendant’s conduct demonstrated a pattern of bad faith and a lack of respect for intellectual property rights.
The Court granted a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from using the interview or any other content related to the show without the plaintiff’s prior approval. The defendant was directed to remove all infringing content from its platforms and cease any further unauthorized use of the plaintiff’s intellectual property. Additionally, the Court ordered the defendant to pay damages to the plaintiff for the loss of goodwill and reputation caused by the infringement.
[Entertainment Network India Limited v Miss Malini Entertainment Private Limited, CS(COMM) 1141/2024, decided on 20-12-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Mr. Abhishek Malhotra, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Kartikay Dutta, Ms. Anukriti Trivedi and Ms.Raghavi Shukla, Advocates for plaintiff
Mr. Vedansh Anand, GP with Mr. Sachin Saraswat, Adv. for UOI. Mr. Aditya Gupta and Ms. Asavari Jain, Advocates for D-3. Mr. Nidhi Raman CGSC with Mr. Akash Mishra, Advocate for D-4 and 5
The post appeared first on .