Delhi High Court Orders Permanent Injunction Against Use Of 'Miss India' Mark by Planet Media Group In Case Filed By Times Group

The Delhi High Court has restrained the use of “Miss India” by Planet Media Group in relation to the beauty pageants organized and promoted by it under the mark “MISS INDIA WORLD” and “TAJ MISS INDIA/MISS INDIA TAJ”.

The bench of Justice Sanjeev Narula remarked that Planet Media had been dishonestly using “MISS INDIA”- the registered mark of Bennett, Coleman and Company, in the title of the beauty pageants organized by the former, including on its websites and social media accounts.

The court said that the same was done with the sole intent of misrepresenting an association with Bennett Coleman Or the Times Group and to dupe the innocent members of the public and the prospective participants of the beauty pageants which have been organized by the Times Group since 1964. The bench remarked that the mala fide intention of Planet Media to ride upon the goodwill and reputation of Bennett Coleman, was proved.

In the suit filed by it seeking permanent injunction against the use of its brand/trade mark “MISS INDIA”, the Times Group contended that it had conceived the annual beauty pageant in India under the mark “MISS INDIA” in 1964. It submitted that it holds the exclusive franchisee to nominate contestants to compete in international pageants such as Miss Universe, Miss Earth, Miss International, etc. It further submitted that it operates the website www.missindia.in, which redirects its users to an online portal where updates are posted pertaining to the MISS INDIA beauty pageant and other international beauty pageants.

It was the case of Bennett Coleman that the defendant, Planet Media Group, was organizing a similar beauty pageant under the mark “MISS INDIA WORLD” and “TAJ MISS INDIA/MISS INDIA TAJ”. The same was also promoted on their websites and social media posts, where it was providing information pertaining to its event and inviting registrations for the titles - “MISS & MRS. UP”, “MISS & MRS. INDIA”, “MISS AND MRS. ASIA”, “MISS & MRS. WORLD”, and “MISS & MRS. UNIVERSE”, the court was told.

The court had earlier passed an ex parte ad interim injunction in Bennett Coleman’s favour and had also directed to lock down the concerned websites/domain name of the defendant-company. Subsequently, the impugned website “www.tajmissindia” was directed to be transferred to Bennett Coleman.

At the outset, the court said that since Planet Media had failed to filed the written statement within the statutory period, its right to file the same stood closed.

While noting that Bennett Coleman is the registered proprietor of the trademark “MISS INDIA” and the formative marks, the court concluded that Planet Media had unauthorizedly used the registered mark in relation to the titles of the beauty pageants organized by it. 

The bench observed that the Times Group has been organizing beauty pageants under the said mark since 1964 and has built an indubitable goodwill and reputation by incurring significant expenditure of capital and resources. Further they have valid and subsisting registrations for the mark “MISS INDIA” and the variations/formations of the same, it added.

The court concluded that the use of identical and deceptively similar trademark/ domain name for identical services of organizing and promoting beauty pageants by Planet Media, would inevitably cause public confusion and deception, and injury to Times Group’s brand, goodwill and reputation.

“Court has perused the documents and plaint which indicates that Defendants No. 1 and 2 have been dishonestly using Plaintiffs’ mark. Defendants No. 1 and 2 use of Plaintiffs’ registered word mark “MISS INDIA” in the impugned title of the beauty pageants, their websites and social media account was with the sole intent of misrepresenting an association with Plaintiffs to dupe innocent members of the public and prospective participants of Plaintiffs’ beauty pageants. The promotional material and posts uploaded on social media, i.e., Facebook pages and YouTube videos proves the mala fide intention of Defendants No. 1 and 2 is to ride upon the goodwill and reputation of the Plaintiffs,” it added.

The court added: “The impugned pageants which are not connected to the Plaintiffs in any manner, are bound to create confusion and deception for the public, prospective participants and even sponsors, resulting in irreparable harm to Plaintiffs’ business, and well-established goodwill and reputation. Defendants No. 1 and 2, if not restrained, are likely to cause commercial harm to the Plaintiffs. Thus, the Court finds that acts of Defendants No. 1 and 2 amount to infringement and passing off Plaintiffs’ marks.”

While concluding that Planet Media had infringed and passed off Bennett Coleman’s marks as its own, the court decreed the suit in its favour and passed a permanent injunction restraining the infringement of its registered mark.

“In view of above, Plaintiffs have established their right to permanent injunction for restraining infringement,” the court said, while awarding costs to Bennett Coleman.

Case Title: Bennett, Coleman and Company Limited & Anr. vs. Planet Media Group & Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 403

Counsel for the Plaintiffs: Ms. Mamta Jha and Ms. Pragya Jain, Advocates.

Click Here To Read/Download Order