Delhi High Court: In a suit seeking permanent injunction restraining the defendants from engaging in unauthorized acts amounting to infringement of the plaintiff’s copyright and trade mark, etc., in relation to the iconic Hindi-language feature film “Andaz Apna Apna”, Amit Bansal, J.*, observed that the plaintiff had demonstrated prima facie case for the grant of an interim injunction in its favor, and if ex-parte and interim injunction was not granted, the plaintiff would suffer an irreparable loss. Thus, the Court granted ex-parte ad interim injunction in the plaintiff’s favor.
Background
The plaintiff was an Indian production house, founded by late Vinay Kumar Sinha, who was a highly respected and veteran producer in the Indian film industry, widely recognised for his deep understanding of cinema, his discerning creative instincts, and his longstanding contribution to Hindi-language films. It was under his production, the Hindi film “Andaz Apna Apna” (‘film’) was made in 1994, which was the subject matter of the present suit.
The plaintiff owned exclusive rights to all concepts, formats and the intellectual property related to the film. While certain exploitation rights regarding the film such as streaming, and making the film available on different platforms, were assigned for a limited period, it was submitted that all the rights in the title, format, which included rights to the character, dialogues, dialogue delivery, style of characters, costumes, overall look of the character, along with all underlying literary, dramatic, artistic work in the said film, derivative and adaptation rights were all owned by the plaintiff.
It was submitted that by virtue of the above rights, the plaintiff had applied for and obtained trade mark registrations in its favor pertaining to the film. It was submitted that the film contained several iconic dialogues and catchphrases that have, over time, acquired immense popularity and gained recognition. Due to their extensive use, they have become instantly recognizable and developed a strong secondary meaning in the minds of the public as being exclusively associated with the plaintiff’s film.
It was contended that the defendants were infringing the plaintiff’s rights in the said film by displaying/communicating to the public/hosting/utilising content, creating merchandise, and online content related to the said film, which exclusively belonged to the plaintiff. Defendants 1-18 and 22 to 24 were selling merchandise bearing the intellectual property of the plaintiff in the said film. These products include t-shirts, hoodies, sweatshirts, mugs, notebooks, posters, badges, fridge magnets and digital art which featured the film name, images and dialogues of characters from the film while also using the character’s name from the film.
Further, it was submitted that Defendants 12, 19-21, were also exploiting and misusing the plaintiff’s intellectual property rights by using Artificial Intelligence-generated content such as videos and virtual stickers.
The plaintiff stated that the defendants were wrongfully trying to associate their infringing goods with the plaintiff’s film. Given the likely inferior nature of these goods, there was a real threat of dilution of the plaintiff’s intellectual property in the said film. Any objections to the quality of the defendants’ products would be attributable to the plaintiff, as the public would have purchased such goods under the mistaken impression that they emanate from the plaintiff. The unauthorized use by the defendants of iconic dialogues, settings from iconic scenes from the film, constituted infringement of copyright in the literary work and the cinematographic film itself.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court observed that the plaintiff had demonstrated prima facie case for the grant of an interim injunction in its favor, and if ex-parte and interim injunction was not granted, the plaintiff would suffer an irreparable loss. Balance of convenience was also in the plaintiff’s favor and against the defendants.
Thus, till the next date of hearing, the Court passed an ex-parte ad-interim injunction, restraining the Defendants 1-16, 18 and 19 (including John Doe parties), and all other persons acting for and on their behalf or claiming under them, from in any manner hosting, streaming, making available for viewing or downloading, communicating to the public, or creating any content, including images, videos, audio-visual content, or AI-generated content which was identical to, adapted from, or derivative of the plaintiff’s film “Andaz Apna Apna”.
Further, the Court restrained Defendants 1-16, 18 and 19 from manufacturing, selling, offering for sale, advertising, promoting, or dealing in any goods or services, including but not limited to merchandise, posters, cards, toys, stickers, mugs, and cups, whether physically or digitally, under or bearing the plaintiff’s registered trade mark “Andaz Apna Apna” or any mark, that was identical or deceptively similar thereto.
The Court directed Defendants 1-16 to take down the listings of infringing videos and merchandise, involving the plaintiff’s film name/ characters and other intellectual property rights. The Court stated that this injunction should also operate in respect of the mirror/redirect/alphanumeric websites/URLs, which were put in play by Defendants 1-16, 18 to grant access to the material being made available on the URL.
The Court directed Google LLC, to take down, remove, and disable the infringing videos, shorts, or other content uploaded by Defendants 19-21, infringing the plaintiff’s rights. Further, directed Desertcart, Etsy, Flipkart and Meesho to remove all infringing product listings being offered by the other defendants.
The Court directed e-commerce platforms to disclose and provide all available details (including their names, contact details, email IDs, IP logs, and bank account/payment gateway details) of the owners, operators, sellers, of goods and services or creators or uploaders of the videos, which were advertised or made available on or through their respective platforms.
The Court directed Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology to issue necessary directions to block and disable all infringing links, websites, and social media channels as identified by the plaintiff in the present proceedings, and to provide necessary assistance for enforcing the orders passed by the present Court.
The matter is next listed on 26-9-2025.
[Vinay Pictures v. Good Hope, CS(COMM) 475 of 2025, decided on 14-5-2025]
*Order by Justice Amit Bansal
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Plaintiff: Pravin Anand, Ameet Naik, Vaishali Mittal, Madhu Gadodia, Siddhant Chamola, Prachi Sharma, Shivang Sharma, Saijal Arora, Sujoy Mukherjee and Devushal Tudekar, Advocates
For the Defendants: Mamta Jha, Rohan Ahuja, Shruttima Ehensa, Aiswarya Debadarshini and Rahul Choudhary, Advocates
