- The Delhi High Court noted that an advertising campaign may be given legal protection if it identifies the source and has grown to be characteristic of the party, but added that the standard for proving distinctiveness in such a situation would be rather high.
- According to Justice Pratibha M. Singh, while distinctive elements in advertising campaigns may be protected by the court, the court will not issue an injunction against an advertisement campaign unless and until there is extreme distinctiveness and a high likelihood of confusion or deception because doing so may stifle creativity.
- The court was handling a lawsuit brought by Bright Lifecare Pvt. Ltd., a corporation that manufactures and trades food, nutraceuticals, and dietary supplements.
- The lawsuit was brought on the grounds that it had violated a number of its rights under the laws governing copyright, trademarks, passing off, etc.
- One of the plaintiff's goods was a protein supplement that was one of several items marketed under the MuscleBlaze (MB) trademark. Under the house mark "VINI," the Defendant No. 1 was a business engaged in the production and marketing of pharmaceutical, ayurvedic, and cosmetic items.
- Defendant No.2 was the YouTube platform, where Defendant No.1's advertising that the Plaintiff claims violate her rights were broadcast.
- The plaintiff claimed that in March 2018, it launched an advertising campaign on numerous online platforms, such as YouTube, using a video with the title "ZIDDI HOON MAIN."
- In January 2022, the Plaintiff saw commercials for Defendant No. 1's "REALMAN" deodorant, which, in the Plaintiff's opinion, were conceptually and aesthetically comparable to its own advertisements.
- Additionally, the Plaintiff claimed that Defendant No. 1 had used the mark/tagline "ZIDDI PERFUME" for the aforementioned advertising campaign, which was confusingly similar to the Plaintiff's mark.
- The Plaintiff argued that Defendant No. 1 had violated both the Plaintiff's trade mark rights and the copyright associated with the cinematograph works by the impugned adoption and use of identical sequences in the advertising and the mark "ZIDDI PERFUME."
- The Court believed that the process of turning an idea into an advertisement campaign is one that takes time and involves more than just "sweat of the brow."
- The Court did stress, though, that only the expressional components used in the advertisement are protected, not only the idea that inspired it.
- The Court believed that the two contested advertisements, which were very reminiscent of and identical to the Plaintiff's campaign, should be prohibited in their current state.
- The Court further ordered that Defendant No. 1 be allowed to edit the impugned commercials in order to eliminate the objectionable frames and then re-launch the commercials, provided that the spectator can clearly distinguish between Defendant No. 1's commercial and its campaign.
"Loved reading this piece by Twinkle Madaan?
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"
