The plaintiffs also own and operate, www.bagittoday.com, a website which provides services similar to the services provided by the defendants. The impugned action in bad faith by the defendants not only creates confusion amongst the general public who may think that the plaintiffs are expanding their online retail business but also dilutes the reputation and the registered trade mark of the plaintiffs as they have no knowledge or control over the quality of products being sold by the defendants.
Today Merchandise Private Limited and Anr.
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: Setu Niket and Esha Mazumdar, Advs.
Sati/a Infrastructure Ltd. & Ors. v. Satya Infra & Estates Pvt. Ltd.
Trade mark – Injunction – Trade marks Act, 1999 (Act) – the plaintiff owners of registered trademark of the INDIA TODAY. The defendants are doing a similar business to that of the plaintiffs i.e. offering variety of products inclusive but not exhaustive of electronics, apparels, accessories, home products, mobile handsets etc. In fact, the plaintiffs also own and operate, www.bagittoday.com, a website which provides services similar to the services provided by the defendants. The impugned action in bad faith by the defendants not only creates confusion amongst the general public who may think that the plaintiffs are expanding their online retail business but also dilutes the reputation and the registered trade mark of the plaintiffs as they have no knowledge or control over the quality of products being sold by the defendants.
“Accordingly, till further orders, defendants are restrained from using the domain name „www.indiatodayers.com‟ or any other deceptively similar domain name.
Defendant no.2 is directed to block the site of defendant no. 1 „www.indiatodayers.com”.
(f) of the plaint. The statement made by learned counsel for plaintiffs is accepted by this Court and plaintiffs are held bound by the same.
Since none appears for the defendants No. 1 and 2 despite service, they are proceeded ex parte.
(i) The Plaintiff No. 2, Living Media India Limited, is a media conglomerate founded in 1975 and plaintiff No.1 is a part of plaintiff No.2. Plaintiff’s magazines include India Today, India Today Hindi, Business Today, Money Today, Travel Plus, etc. The Plaintiffs were the first to adopt the trademark INDIA TODAY in 1975 and since then the mark has become synonymous with the Plaintiffs and the subscribers; trade competitors and the general public have come to associate the same with the plaintiffs.
(ii) The word mark INDIA TODAY is registered in several countries including but not limited to India. In India plaintiffs enjoy statutory protection of the trade mark “INDIA TODAY” in Class 7 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. By virtue of the abovementioned registrations the plaintiffs enjoy the exclusive statutory right to use the trademark INDIA TODAY and other related registered trade marks including but not limited to BUSINESS TODAY, DESIGN TODAY, MONEY TODAY HEADLINES TODAY etc.
(iii) The electronic versions of the plaintiffs’ publications are available on website www.indiatodaygroup.com. The said website, which is accessible from anywhere in the world, receives millions of hits every day. Additionally, the plaintiffs also own and operate multiple websites like www.bagittoday.com, www.intoday.in, www.indiatoday.intoday.in, www.indiatodayshopping.com, and www.indiatodayshopping.in. The plaintiffs further submit that the word INDIA TODAY has acquired a secondary significance and is a source identifier.
(iv) The defendants have wilfully and unlawfully registered the domain name www.indiatodayers.com, for online shopping, which is identical to the registered trademark of the plaintiff INDIA TODAY.
(v) The defendants are doing a similar business to that of the plaintiffs i.e. offering variety of products inclusive but not exhaustive of electronics, apparels, accessories, home products, mobile handsets etc. In fact, the plaintiffs also own and operate, www.bagittoday.com, a website which provides services similar to the services provided by the defendants.
(vi) The impugned action in bad faith by the defendants not only creates confusion amongst the general public who may think that the plaintiffs are expanding their online retail business but also dilutes the reputation and the registered trade mark of the plaintiffs as they have no knowledge or control over the quality of products being sold by the defendants.
In the opinion of this Court, the defendants No.1 and 2 have no real prospect of defending the claim as they have neither entered appearance nor filed their written statement or denied the documents of the plaintiffs. Further, the plaintiffs are the prior registered user of the trade mark and domain name www.indiatodaygroup.com.
(b) and (f) of the plaint along with the actual costs. The costs shall amongst others include the lawyer’s fees as well as the amount spent on Court-fees. The statement made by defendant No.3 in para 5 of its affidavit is accepted by this Court and the said defendant is held bound by the same. Registry is directed to prepare a decree sheet accordingly.
Consequently, the present suit and applications stand disposed of.