Delhi HC Orders Bhojpuri Social Media Account ‘Voice Of Mithila’ to Stop Using Mark Identical ‘The Voice’

Delhi High Court Law Insider

Tanisha Rana

Published on: October 1, 2022 at 19:51 IST

After ITV Studios sued for copyright infringement [ITV Studios Netherlands Content BV vs. Voice of Mithila], the Delhi High Court recently ordered a Bhojpuri social media account called “Voice of Mithila” to stop using the mark identical to the musical competition series “The Voice.”

The mark used by “Voice of Mithila” appears to be confusingly similar to The Voice, according to Justice Navin Chawla, and ITV studios has therefore established a strong preliminary argument for the granting of an ex-parte ad-interim injunction.

“The plaintiff has asserted a worldwide reputation of its mark and any such adoption by the defendant is likely to cause dilution in the identity of that mark.”

“The balance of convenience is also in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant inasmuch as the plaintiff asserts that the defendant is new entrant, claiming user only since the year 2020”

“Accordingly, an ad-interim ex-parte injunction in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant is passed in terms of prayers (a) to (c) in the application, till further orders,” the Court ordered.

ITV Studios went to the High Court, claiming that it is a recognised creator of entertainment content and is in charge of The Voice and other well-known talent competitions.

According to the lawsuit, the show has been broadcast in India since 2010.

Additionally, it was claimed that the defendants operated an online video production and uploading company.

ITV contended that using a similar mark would violate their rights and cause the mark to be confused with others’ goods and services and lose its distinctiveness.

On December 16 before the Joint Registrar, the Court set the case for further consideration and issued summons in the lawsuit.

ITV Studios’ attorneys Peeyoosh Kalra, CA Brijesh, Ishith Arora, and Pragati Agrawal made an appearance.

For the defendant, no one appeared.

Related Post