Prima facie there is no likelihood of confusion between the TV shows - 'Bhaiyaji Kahin' by News18 and 'Bhaiya Ji Superhit' by Times Now Navbharat, the Delhi High Court observed.
Justice Amit Bansal rejected the interim injunction application moved by TV 18 Broadcast, a subsidiary of the Network18 group. This request was made as part of their lawsuit against Bennett Coleman and Company, alleging infringement of their trademark for the Hindi news show ‘Bhaiyaji Kahin’, according to media reports.
News18 informed the court that its show debuted in December 2016 and has since aired more than 1,200 episodes.
The suit was filed after News18 learned that Times Now Navbharat was launching a show called 'Bhaiya Ji Superhit' with a similar concept, using humour and satire to highlight "newsworthy issues."
Justice Bansal denied interim relief to News18, stating that the term ‘Bhaiyaji’ is commonly used in specific regions such as Uttar Pradesh and Bihar, where it translates to 'brother'. Consequently, the term is of a non-distinctive character, according to the media reports.
“Therefore, in my prima facie view, the term ‘Bhaiyaji’ is a generic term of widespread use and nobody can claim exclusive right to use such generic words. Having regard to the aforesaid, the plaintiff is not entitled to exclusive rights over the mark ‘Bhaiyaji’ in terms of Section 17 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999,” the court said.
The court observed that the terms 'Kahin' used by News18 and 'Superhit' used by Times Now Navbharat have no similarity.
“In view of the disclaimer with regard to the term ‘Bhaiyaji’ under class 41, the plaintiff cannot restrict the defendant from using the said term. This is also made clear by Section 28(2) of the Trade Marks Act, which provides that the exclusive right to use of a trademark shall be subject to any condition and limitation that is part of the registration granted,” it said.
The court noted that News18's show is an interactive program that is unscripted, while 'Bhaiya Ji Superhit' is a scripted and non-interactive show.
“The defendant’s show is hosted and anchored by a standup comedian, whereas the show of the plaintiff is hosted and anchored by a news anchor/journalist. Further, the two shows are shown on different television channels. Therefore, in my prima facie view there is no likelihood of confusion between the two television shows," the court stated.
“As regards the contention of the plaintiff that the mark 'Bhaiyaji Kahin' has acquired distinctiveness on account of long user, in my view, this aspect can only be examined in trial and cannot be the basis for grant of an interim injunction," it added.