DEBANGSU BASAK,J. - (1.) 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 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.;