In Vishesh Films Private Limited v. Super Cassettes Industries Limited (CS(COMM) 68/2024), Vishesh Films sought an injunction against Super Cassettes Industries (T-Series), alleging violation of intellectual property rights related to the famous “Aashiqui” film franchise. Here’s a breakdown of the case:

Background:

The plaintiff, Vishesh Films, claimed proprietary rights over the “Aashiqui” franchise based on two prior agreements with the defendant (T-Series) that jointly produced the hit movies “Aashiqui” (1990) and “Aashiqui 2” (2013). Both films enjoyed significant commercial success. The plaintiff alleged that any attempt by the defendant to release “Aashiqui 3” or a similar film without their express consent was a violation of their joint ownership and intellectual property rights.

Facts:

• The plaintiff and defendant co-produced “Aashiqui” and “Aashiqui 2,” under two agreements signed in 1990 and 2011. These agreements established joint ownership over the films, excluding music rights.
• The plaintiff had registered the trademarks “Aashiqui” and “Aashiqui Ke Liye” in multiple classes under the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
• Discussions for “Aashiqui 3” had taken place, and a joint announcement of the film was made to the public in 2022. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant promoted a new film titled “Tu Hi Aashiqui” or “Aashiqui 3”without their involvement, misleading the public into believing it was part of the franchise.

Issues:

1. Trademark Infringement and Passing Off: Whether the defendant’s use of the title “Tu Hi Aashiqui” or similar titles infringed the plaintiff’s trademark rights and created confusion.
2. Breach of Joint Ownership: Whether the defendant could produce and promote films under the “Aashiqui”banner without the plaintiff’s consent.
3. Jurisdiction: The defendant challenged the jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court, citing that agreements were executed in Mumbai with jurisdiction clauses favoring courts there.
4. Generic Nature of the Mark: The defendant claimed “Aashiqui” was a generic term, widely used in the industry, and lacked distinctiveness.
5. Balance of Convenience and Irreparable Harm: Whether the plaintiff would suffer irreparable harm without an injunction.

Arguments:

• Plaintiff’s Contentions:
  1. The “Aashiqui” franchise had acquired secondary meaning and was associated with their brand of romantic cinema.
  2. The defendant’s use of “Aashiqui” or similar names like “Tu Hi Aashiqui” would confuse the public into believing it was part of their franchise.
  3. The plaintiff had exclusive rights over the trademark “Aashiqui” and its derivatives, and the defendant’s actions would harm their future rights and the franchise’s value.
• Defendant’s Contentions:
  1. They admitted joint ownership but claimed they had no intention of producing “Aashiqui 3”. They argued that “Tu Hi Aashiqui” was not connected to the franchise and was entirely distinct.
  2. The term “Aashiqui” was generic and widely used in the industry, and the plaintiff’s claims of exclusivity over the title were exaggerated.
  3. They issued a press release and disclaimer stating that their upcoming film was unrelated to “Aashiqui”, addressing any potential public confusion.

Judgment:

Justice Sanjeev Narula ruled in favor of the plaintiff, granting an interim injunction, preventing the defendant from using the title “Aashiqui” or similar variations for their film. Key findings included:

• Trademark Validity: The court rejected the argument that “Aashiqui” was a generic term. It recognized that the “Aashiqui” brand had acquired secondary meaning, associating it with the plaintiff’s franchise.
• Deceptive Similarity: The defendant’s proposed title “Tu Hi Aashiqui” was deemed deceptively similar to the plaintiff’s trademark. It was likely to mislead the public into thinking the film was part of the “Aashiqui”franchise, despite disclaimers.
• Public Confusion: Given the history of collaboration between the parties and public announcements regarding “Aashiqui 3”, the court found that public confusion was inevitable if the defendant released a film with a similar title.
• Balance of Convenience: The court held that the balance of convenience favored the plaintiff. Allowing the defendant to proceed would cause irreparable harm to the plaintiff’s brand and future opportunities related to “Aashiqui 3”.

Thus, the injunction was granted to protect the plaintiff’s rights, and the defendant was restrained from using the “Aashiqui” title or any variation thereof until further resolution.