Delhi High Court: In a case where Tata Sia Airlines Limited filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC for grant of an ex-parte ad-interim injunction, the Single Judge Bench of Jyoti Singh, J. passed an interim order restraining Vistara Media Private Limited from using Tata Sia Airlines Limited’s registered and well-known trade mark ‘Vistara’.
Plaintiff filed the present suit to seek permanent injunction restraining infringement of its registered and well-known trademark ‘Vistara’. The mark ‘Vistara’ has been declared a well-known trademark under Section 2(1)(zg) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 by this Court in TATA SIA Airlines Limited v. Pilot18 Aviation Book Store, 2019 SCC OnLine Del 9535.
In 2022, plaintiff came to know that defendant company was incorporated in 2021 and was engaged in the business of news broadcasting services and had been using plaintiff’s registered and well-known trade mark ‘Vistara’ in various forms and manners. Plaintiff placed a news article on record, by which it appeared that defendant’s website mentioned about plaintiff and its airline business, destinations, and operations, using the trade mark ‘Vistara’.
Counsel for the plaintiff submitted that being a registered proprietor of the trademark ‘Vistara’, plaintiff had an exclusive right to use the trade mark and to protect the same from infringement by third parties. Further, it was submitted that defendant had dishonestly copied the trade mark ‘Vistara’ in its entirety and it was manifestly clear that the intention was to confuse the customers into believing that the services and packages offered by the defendant originate from the plaintiff and was a clear case of infringement under Section 29 of the Act. It was also submitted that over the years, plaintiff had built a reputation and misrepresentation by the defendant to the public was leading to an incalculable harm and injury to plaintiff’s goodwill and business.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court held that plaintiff made out a prima facie case for grant of ex parte ad-interim injunction and balance of convenience also lied in favour of the plaintiff. Therefore, the Court held that the defendant and all others acting for and on its behalf were restrained from using plaintiff’s registered and well-known trade mark ‘Vistara’, in any form or manner whatsoever, including but not limited to its variations in vernacular languages such as Kannada, amounting to infringement and were also restrained from passing off its services or goods as that of the plaintiff. Further, defendants were directed to take down their website with domain name www.vistaranews.com.
[Tata Sia Airlines Limited v. Vistara Media Private Limited, 2022 SCC OnLine Del 4076, decided on 22-11-2022]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Plaintiff(s): Advocate Pravin Anand;
Advocate Achuthan Sreekumar;
Advocate Rohil Bansal.