The Intellectual Property Rights are subject to certain limitations to these rights, particularly when it comes to generic and non-distinctive words. This article will delve into one Judgment delivered by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi wherein interim injunction was refused on the ground that the term BHAIYAJI is generic, common to trade and non distinctive in nature.

The Subject Matter Suit:
The Plaintiff filed the subject matter Suit on the basis of their ownership in Television Show namely .

The Plaintiff's Trademark Registration:
Plaintiff also claimed to be registered Proprietor of the trademark  since 2016, while the same has aired more than 1200 episodes of the afore mentioned program  since 2016.

The Activities Of Defendant:
The suit was filed when the Plaintiff, in the year January 2022 became aware of this fact that the Defendant was in the process of launching a show titled as भैयाजी सुपरहिट.

The Judgement:
The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi was pleased not to grant any relief of temporary injunction.

The Reasons:
Plaintiff was having Trademark registration in class 38 without disclaimer condition and in class 41 with disclaimer. Relevant class for the subject matter Suit is class 41. Hence Class 38 registration would be of no help to the Plaintiff.

Disclaimer:
Information contained herein is being shared in the public Interest. The same should not be treated as substitute for legal advice as it is subject to my subjectivity and may contain human errors in perception, interpretation and presentation of the facts and law involved herein.

The Plaintiff can not have exclusive right over the word BHAIYAJI which is common in use in UP and BIHAR, which means brother and hence is non distinctive in character.

The Defendant has also filed various documents on record showing that there various Television Program used by various Television Channels comprising the word BHAIYAJI, evidencing the same to be common in trade

The Hon'ble Court further observed that word BHAIYAJI is generic in nature and no exclusivity can be claimed by the Plaintiff in view of Section 17 of Trademarks Act 1999 also.

One more important aspect of the matter was that in reply to examination report, the Plaintiff took the stand that it's trademark, different from. Now plaintiff can not be allowed Aprobate and reprobate and can asserted Trademark of the Defendant is similar to Plaintiff's Trademark .

Even format of both the shows are quite different. Hence issue of passing off also would not arise.

The Concluding Note:
Trademark law seeks to promote fair competition by encouraging market participants to develop distinctive marks that differentiate their goods or services from those of their competitors.

The refusal to grant an injunction for the "BHAIYAJI" trademark aligns with this objective, as it prevents one party from monopolizing a generic and commonly used term, allowing others to freely compete in the marketplace.

This decision promotes a level playing field and ensures that consumers have access to a variety of choices when making purchasing decisions.

The Delhi High Court's refusal to grant an injunction for the trademark "BHAIYAJI" was a sound and justifiable decision. The mark was rightly deemed generic, common, and lacking distinctive character, rendering it ineligible for trademark protection.

The court's reasoning was based on the fact that "Bhaiyaji" is a term commonly used in India to refer to elder brothers from the Hindi-speaking regions of the country. The combination of these elements results in a mark that lacks the necessary distinctiveness to function as a trademark.

Case Law Discussed:
Case Title: TV 18 Broad Cast Limited Vs Benett Coleman and Company Limited
Date of Judgment: 04.07.2023
Case No: CS Comm 279 of 2023
Neutral Citation No: 2023:DHC:4352
Name of Hon'ble Court: Hon'ble High Court of Delhi
Name of Hon'ble Judge: Amit Bansal, H.J.

Disclaimer
Information contained herein is being shared in the public Interest. The same should not be treated as substitute for legal advice as it is subject to my subjectivity and may contain human errors in perception, interpretation and presentation of the facts and law involved herein.

Written By:Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor, Patent and Trademark Attorney
Email: [email protected], Ph no: 9990389539