Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1739 (DEL)

ICICI Bank Ltd. v. Ashok Thakeria

2013-09-09

M.L.MEHTA

body2013
ORDER M.L. Mehta, J. I.A. 14396/2013 (For Exemption) Exceptions allowed, subject to all just exceptions. The application stands disposed. I.A. 14397/2013 (for exemption from filing Court fees) Requisite Court Fees has been deposited. The application stands disposed. CS(OS) 1744/2013 and I.A. 14395/2013 (under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. Let summons in the suit and notice in the I.A. be issued to the defendants on filing of PF/RC/taking steps within a week, returnable for 26.09.2013. I.A. 14395/2013 (under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. 1. Application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. is filed for interim injunction against defendant from using the mark/name/brand ICICI and 'i' device, or the mark IBIBI including the banners, promotional/informational material, the Red and Orange Colour Scheme as a part of the movie 'Grand Masti'. The plaintiff, ICICI Bank Ltd., is stated to carrying out operations in 19 other countries and has secured various registrations of its mark 'ICICI' and the 'i' device in various classes under the provisions of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. Further, this Court in the case of ICICI Bank Ltd. Vs. Chuandong XU and Another D+, (2012) 49 PTC 291 , held that, by virtue of extensive publicity and use of the mark around the world, the trade mark ICICI has acquired the significance of a well-known mark as defined under Sec. 2(1)(zg) of the Act. The plaintiff is also stated to be the recipient of various honours and awards, including the Award for 'The Most Trusted Brand among Private Sector Banks in 2010'. 2. In the first week of September, the plaintiff alleges that it came across a trailer of the defendant's movie 'Grand Masti', which depicts the plaintiff's bank in bad light. The grievance of the plaintiff is that, the trailer of the movie depicts a robbery which appears to be taking place in a bank carrying the banner/poster 'IBIBI', used in conjunction with a logo which is deceptively similar to the 'i' device of the plaintiff. The said scene also carries a banner/poster containing the message Your trust keeps us ahead IBIBI BANK VOTED THE MOST TRUSTED BRAND AMONG PRIVATE SECTOR BANKS IN 2010. Once again, we have been voted as the most Trusted Brand among Private Sector Banks by the Economic Times Brand Equity Most Trusted Brands Awards*. Thank you for standing by us" 3. The said scene also carries a banner/poster containing the message Your trust keeps us ahead IBIBI BANK VOTED THE MOST TRUSTED BRAND AMONG PRIVATE SECTOR BANKS IN 2010. Once again, we have been voted as the most Trusted Brand among Private Sector Banks by the Economic Times Brand Equity Most Trusted Brands Awards*. Thank you for standing by us" 3. The above mentioned banner/poster is a verbatim replica of the plaintiff's poster, carrying the same font, layout and colour scheme, barring the term IBIBI which is used in place of ICICI. Screen shots of the impugned scene depicting the bank robbery, as well as the plaintiff's original banner/poster regarding its Most Trusted Brand Award is placed on record. The plaintiff apprehends that the defendants convey through the impugned scene, that the plaintiff's bank is a bank with extremely weak security, and that customers' deposits are unsafe in their custody. And that this ex facie, amounts to commercial disparagement of their service, thereby adversely affecting and tarnishing the goodwill, reputation and brand equity associated with the plaintiff's well known trade mark ICICI and the 'i' device. 4. I have heard the Ld. Sr. Counsel appearing for the plaintiff and also perused through the screen-shots of the impugned scene along with the Original Copy of the plaintiffs banner/poster. The Ld. Counsel appearing for the plaintiff has stated that the movie is yet to be released, and that the impugned scene is currently being shown to the public as a part of their promotional trailers on media and internet. And prays that this Court direct the defendant to censor/blur the marks, logo and poster/banner which are deceptively similar to that of the plaintiff's. 5. Upon a simple visual comparison, it is apparent to me that the viewers are likely to associate the bank in the impugned scene with the plaintiff bank. Therefore, the plaintiff has made out a prima facie case. Since the movie has not yet released, the balance of convenience lies in favour of the plaintiff. Moreover, since the plaintiff is only seeking blurring/censoring of the disparaging font/content of the movie carrying the marks IBIBI, the logo similar to the 'i' device, and the banner/poster regarding the 'Most Trusted Brand Award' in an identical font, layout and colour scheme, I do not think that the relief prayed, if granted, would materially affect the message/story line of the impugned scene. Besides, if the relief is not granted to the plaintiff, it will suffer irreparable harm, which cannot be appropriately restituted through damages. In fact, the plaintiff has also placed on record, emails which the plaintiff has received from various people informing them about the scene in the movie, which portrays the plaintiff in bad light. 6. In light of the aforesaid observations, I hereby grant an ex-parte injunction in favour of the plaintiff, directing the defendants to blur/censor the disparaging font/content of the movie carrying the marks IBIBI, the logo similar to the 'i' device, and the banner/poster regarding the 'Most Trusted Brand Award' in an identical font, layout and colour scheme as that of the plaintiff's, in its bank robbery scene and/or any other part/scene of the movie 'Grand Masti'. Order XXXIX Rule 3 to be complied within seven days. Order Dasti under signature of Court Master.