JUDGMENT Debangsu Basak, J. - The Court: In a suit for passing off, the plaintiff seeks interim protection. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the plaintiff submits that, the plaintiff applied for the trademark 'Republic' on November 20, 2016. The plaintiff applied for permission to run a T.V. channel on November 24, 2016. At that point of time, the defendant was not in the fray. He submits that, the plaintiff is the prior user of the trademark 'Republic TV'. He draws the attention of the Court to the fact that, Republic TV was launched on May 6, 2017. In fact, the launch of Republic TV was announced on December 15, 2016. During the period of March and April, 2017, there was wide spread advertisements on all India basis about the launch of Republic TV. The Republic TV was ultimately launched on May 6, 2017. He submits that, the defendant claims to have obtained a domain name of www.republichindi.com on May 6, 2017. There is every likelihood of the defendant copying the trademark of the plaintiff. 2. Referring to the notice dated March 3, 2018 issued on behalf of the plaintiff, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the plaintiff submits that, the defendant did not reply thereto. The defendant, however, filed a suit in the City Civil Court at Calcutta. In the plaint of the suit, the defendant claimed that, the defendant concurrently developed the trademark 'Republic Hindi' and purchased the domain name on May 6, 2017. He submits that, the defendant is carrying on a news portal on the Internet under the name and style of 'republichindi.com'. He submits that, the user of the words 'Republic Hindi' and 'republichindi.com' by the defendant are deceptively similar to that of the trademark of the plaintiff. The plaintiff being a prior user and the font, get up, colour scheme and the words used by the defendant being deceptively similar with those used by the plaintiff, the defendant is guilty of passing of its products as that of the plaintiff. He draws the attention of the Court to various pages namely, 228 and 229 of the petition. He submits that, the plaintiff uses the word 'Republic TV' in the manner with the colour scheme and the artwork as appearing in page 228 of the petition. The plaintiff also uses the word 'R.' as appearing at page 229 of the petition. He draws the attention of the Court to various pages namely, 228 and 229 of the petition. He submits that, the plaintiff uses the word 'Republic TV' in the manner with the colour scheme and the artwork as appearing in page 228 of the petition. The plaintiff also uses the word 'R.' as appearing at page 229 of the petition. He compares the same with pages 283, 284 and 285 of the petition which contains the mark of the defendant. He submits that, the defendant originally started with the word 'Republic Hindi' in blue. Then, after the launch of the T.V. channel by the plaintiff, the defendant changed the colour scheme to red and blue. The defendant is using a similar font for the word 'Republic'. The defendant is also using a similar font for the letter 'R'. The word 'Hindi' is in vernacular attached to the word 'Republic'. The defendant by the user of the word 'Republic Hindi' in the same font as used by the plaintiff and with the same colour combination is seeking to pass off 'Republic Hindi' as that of a product of the plaintiff. 3. Relying upon 2004 Volume 6 SCC 145 (Satyam Infoway Ltd. v. Siffynet Solutions Pvt. Ltd.) learned Senior Advocate appearing for the plaintiff submits that, once, the Court finds that the explanations given by the defendant is unbelievable then, the plaintiff is entitled interim protection. In respect of such contention, he refers to the pleadings made in the plaint of the defendant in the City Civil Court at Calcutta. He submits that, when the suit was filed by the defendant before the City Civil Court at Calcutta, the defendant was owned by two persons. In the plaint of the City Civil Court suit, the defendant claimed that, the words 'Republic Hindi' was conceptualized and implemented by the defendant. The management of the defendant underwent a change subsequently. One of the persons in the management of the defendant when the suit was filed by the defendant before the City Civil Court at Calcutta, is no longer in the management of the defendant. A new person came in. However, the defendant in the affidavit-in-opposition took a stand that, the defendant conceived of the words 'Republic Hindi'. He submits that, the explanation given by the defendant is unbelievable. Moreover, the change of the colour scheme subsequently by the defendant speaks of a deceitful action. A new person came in. However, the defendant in the affidavit-in-opposition took a stand that, the defendant conceived of the words 'Republic Hindi'. He submits that, the explanation given by the defendant is unbelievable. Moreover, the change of the colour scheme subsequently by the defendant speaks of a deceitful action. 4. There is no explanation given by the defendant as to the user of the same colour and font scheme as that of the plaintiff. Therefore, the defendant may be restrained in the manner as prayed for by the plaintiff. 5. Relying upon 2016 SCC OnLine Bombay 6603 (B4U Television Networks India Ltd. & Anr. v. Bhavishya Broadcastings Ltd. & Ors.) learned Senior Advocate appearing for the plaintiff submits that, since the defendant is guilty of dishonestly adopting the font in the art work of the trademark of the plaintiff, the colour used by the plaintiff and since the mark of the defendant is deceptively similar, an interim order is called for. 6. Learned Advocate appearing for the defendant submits that, the plaintiff seeks to monopolize the user of the word 'Republic'. He draws the attention of the Court to the meaning of the word 'Republic' by relying upon the meaning of the word 'Republic' as appearing in wikipedia. He submits that, the word 'Republic' is a Latin phrase which means 'public affair'. According to him, the word 'Republic' is descriptive and generic. There is nothing distinctive about it. The word 'Republic' being descriptive and generic, the plaintiff cannot have an order of injunction as prayed for. 7. Learned Advocate appearing for the defendant refers to the averments made in the affidavit-in-opposition and submits that, the domain name of the defendant was registered on May 6, 2017. The defendant, therefore, could not have any previous knowledge about the plaintiffs channel and the adoption of the domain name 'www.republichindi.com' is an honest, concurrent and bona fide adoption. Therefore, according to him, no injunction should be granted. 8. Learned Advocate appearing for the defendant submits that, the plaintiff did not disclose that, the application of the plaintiff to the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting for launch of the word 'Republic TV' channel on November 24, 2017. According to him, the plaintiffs attempt to have a TV channel with the word 'Republic' only was not allowed. 8. Learned Advocate appearing for the defendant submits that, the plaintiff did not disclose that, the application of the plaintiff to the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting for launch of the word 'Republic TV' channel on November 24, 2017. According to him, the plaintiffs attempt to have a TV channel with the word 'Republic' only was not allowed. He submits that, such application was modified and the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting granted permission for the channel 'Republic TV' and not for the word 'Republic'. Therefore, the plaintiff cannot claim any right over the word 'Republic'. 9. Referring to a print out obtained from the Internet and as annexed to the affidavit in opposition, learned Advocate appearing for the defendant submits that, the defendant publishes on the Internet. In such publications, the defendant carried an insertion that, 'Republic Hindi' is not a part or portion of 'Republic TV'. The defendant denied the suggestions appearing in the section of the media that, the defendant was a part and parcel of the plaintiff. He submits that, the defendant itself taking a stand as noted in such insertion, it cannot be said that, the defendant is guilty of infringing any right of the plaintiff by passing off. 10. Learned advocate appearing for the defendant relies upon various down loads from the Internet as annexed to the affidavit in opposition and submits that, there are other news broadcasters on the internet using the word Republic. He draws the attention of the Court to the fact that, there are entities who are using the words News Republic, online Republic Malayalam, online Republic - Tamil and news republic India amongst others. Therefore, he submits that, there is no distinctiveness in the words Republic TV as used by the plaintiff to warrant grant of injunction. In fact, there are other prior users in the field. 11. Relying upon 2014 Supreme Court Cases online Delhi 768 (Living Media India Limited & Anr. v. Alpha Dealcom Private Limited & Ors.) , learned advocate appearing for the defendant submits that, injunction was refused in such case when it was found that, the trade mark India today of the plaintiff and Nation today used by the defendant therein were not similar. v. Alpha Dealcom Private Limited & Ors.) , learned advocate appearing for the defendant submits that, injunction was refused in such case when it was found that, the trade mark India today of the plaintiff and Nation today used by the defendant therein were not similar. Relying upon 2016 SCC onLine Bombay 7351 (People Interactive (India) Private Limited v. Vivek Pahwa) learned advocate appearing for the defendant submits that, since the words 'Republic TV' and 'republichindi.com' are not similar, interim order as prayed for should not be granted. On similar vein, he relies upon 2019 SCC onLine Delhi 6652 (Bigtree Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. v. D. Sharma and Anr.) . 12. The plaintiff launched a T.V. channel on May 6, 2017 by the name and style of 'Republic TV'. The plaintiff predominantly uses a particular shade of the colour red in which, the word 'Republic' appears in white. The word 'Republic' is used in a particular font. The word 'T.V.' is in a circle of white amongst the background of the colour red used for the words 'Republic TV'. The plaintiff also uses a distinctive mark with the letter R again on the same shade of colour red as that of 'Republic TV'. The letter R is followed by a dot in white. The entirety of the letter R and the R. on a shade of colour red in the background with white in used for the letter and the dot makes a package which is easily recognizable by the public. Taking the trademark in its entirety there is an element of distinctiveness in it. Descriptive word 'Republic' is used by the plaintiff in a colour and font combination which results in the entire mark attaining distinctiveness. 13. The defendant obtained a domain name as 'www.republichindi.com' on May 6, 2017. As it appears from page 286 of the petition, the domain name of 'republichindi.com' and the contents therein were in the colour blue with the word 'Republic' and 'Hindi' being separate and the word 'Hindi' being used in the English language. Presently, the defendant is using the words 'Republic Hindi' with the combination of colour red and blue with the colour red being used predominantly for the background of the word 'Republic'. Presently, the defendant is using the words 'Republic Hindi' with the combination of colour red and blue with the colour red being used predominantly for the background of the word 'Republic'. The word 'Republic' of the defendant is printed on the same shade of the colour red as that used by the plaintiff for its background with white being used for the word. The defendant is using the same colour and font combination as that of the plaintiff so far as the word 'Republic' is concerned. The plaintiff is now using the word 'Hindi' in the vernacular on a shade of blue with the word 'Hindi' in vernacular being in white. That apart, the defendant is using the letter 'R' on the same shade of the colour red as font as that of the plaintiff with an insertion of the word 'Hindi' in vernacular. On a visual appreciation of the two marks, it appears that, the mark used by the defendant is deceptively similar to that used by the plaintiff. A person may be misled to understand that the defendant is a part of the plaintiff. The plaintiff is engaged in the business of dissemination of news through a news channel. The defendant is claiming to be in the business of dissemination of news on the Internet. There is a similarity of business between the plaintiff and the defendant. Although the plaintiff and the defendant are using different media for airing their products, however, at this age of technological development, a person who has access to the television programmes on a television is more likely than not to have access to the Internet. 14. The claim of the defendant that it is an honest, bona fide and concurrent user requires consideration. The defendant claims that the word 'Republic Hindi' was developed concurrently bona fide and without the notice of the plaintiff user of the word 'Republic'. The defendant also claims that the word 'Republic' is not distinctive in nature so as to sustain a case of passing off. 15. In the facts of the present case, the launch of 'Republic TV' was preceded by an announcement for the launch in December, 2016 and advertisements for the launch in the months of March, 2017 and April, 2017. The defendant purchased the domain name www.republichindi.com on May 6, 2017. 15. In the facts of the present case, the launch of 'Republic TV' was preceded by an announcement for the launch in December, 2016 and advertisements for the launch in the months of March, 2017 and April, 2017. The defendant purchased the domain name www.republichindi.com on May 6, 2017. There is nothing on record to suggest that the defendant conceptualized 'Republic Hindi' concurrently with the plaintiff. The user starts on the same day as that of the plaintiff. However, the plaintiff used the mark prior to the defendant as would appear from the advertisements of March 2017 and April 2017. Therefore, prior to the defendant purchasing the domain name www.republichindi.com, the public at large was made aware by the plaintiff that, there would be a launch of a TV channel under the name and style of Republic TV. 16. In Satyam Infoway Ltd. (supra) the Supreme Court found that, the justification given by the defendant in choosing the word Siffy was not acceptable. In the facts of the present case also, the justification given by the defendant are not acceptable. In B4U Television Networks India Ltd. (supra) the Court after returning a prima facie finding that, the defendant was guilty of passing off, granted an ad-interim injunction. 17. In Living Media India Limited and Another (supra) the Court in the facts of that case did not find that the word India Today was distinctive. In fact, it found that, the plaintiff in that case, obtained registration of the word India Today after giving an undertaking that, the words India Today and Punjab Today were different. The Court also found different users. In People Interactive (India) Private Limited (supra) the Court after returning a finding that, the plaintiff was guilty of acquiescence and that, there was no distinctiveness in the trademark of plaintiff, refused to grant relief. The Court held as follows:- '11. There are two issues here: first, the matter of acquisition of a secondary meaning; and, second, whether a domain name always assumes the features of a trade mark. As to the first, in Indchemie - a decision that does not, in my view, support Mr. Khandekar at all - Gupte J referenced Miller Brewing Company v. G. Heileman Brewing Company Inc. and noted the spectrum of degrees of distinctiveness: (1) generic or commonly descriptive; (2) merely descriptive; (3) suggestive; (4) arbitrary or fanciful. As to the first, in Indchemie - a decision that does not, in my view, support Mr. Khandekar at all - Gupte J referenced Miller Brewing Company v. G. Heileman Brewing Company Inc. and noted the spectrum of degrees of distinctiveness: (1) generic or commonly descriptive; (2) merely descriptive; (3) suggestive; (4) arbitrary or fanciful. Generic or commonly descriptive words - examples such as necktie, plastic, soda, perfect, best, No. 1 come to mind - are used to name or describe the goods in question. These can never become trade marks on their own. They never acquire distinctiveness or a secondary meaning. They do not tell one mans goods from anothers. They do not indicate origin. An expression in the second category, a merely descriptive term, is often used to describe some particular characteristic or ingredient: airtight, perhaps. Ordinarily, even these are not registerable unless they have acquired a secondary meaning and refer exclusively to one particular traders goods. In the third category we have suggestive words. These only hint at a feature or a specialty. The consumer must, in his mind, make the necessary link between the word and the goods. This class of expression requires no proof of acquisition of a secondary meaning to proceed to registration,; it may however, be hedged with a disclaimer regarding the manner of use. A wholly arbitrary or fanciful word is always registrable, and it always separates or distinguishes one persons goods from anothers. 12. As a general rule, it seems to me that the principle is of obviousness. The degree of distinctiveness, and, therefore, the possibility of registration as a trade mark, is inversely proportional to the degree of obviousness: the more obvious the word, the less the degree of distinctiveness and the chances of its registration. I use the word obvious here to mean not evident but commonplace. 13. Words in everyday language, words of the common tongue are not to be allowed to be monopolized. Expressions that find themselves at the lower end of this four-position fretboard cannot easily be shifted higher up the scale. To make that ascent, it will not do to misspell the word. That, it is settled, is of no aid to the applicant. Indchemie discusses this aspect of the law.' 18. Expressions that find themselves at the lower end of this four-position fretboard cannot easily be shifted higher up the scale. To make that ascent, it will not do to misspell the word. That, it is settled, is of no aid to the applicant. Indchemie discusses this aspect of the law.' 18. In Bigtree Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. (supra) the Court found in the facts of that case, the features of the mark and colour combination used by the defendant were entirely different. The Court did not find any deception on the part of the defendant. Therefore, the Court did not grant any order. 19. In the facts of the present case, I find that, the manner in which the defendant is using the word Republic Hindi with the colour combination and font used by the defendant, the mark of the defendant is deceptively similar to that used by the plaintiff. 20. In such circumstances, there will be an order in terms of prayers (a) and (d) of the petition. GA No.2305 of 2018 is disposed of without any order as to costs. Learned advocate appearing for the defendant prays for stay of the operation of the judgment and order. Such prayer is considered and refused.