| Case Name | Dharma Productions (P) Ltd v. Bhallaram Choudhary, 2024. |
| Citation | 2024 SCC OnLine Raj 2953 |
| Court | High Court Rajasthan |
| Bench | Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Munnuri Laxman, JJ. |
| Decided On. | 10th October 2024. |
| Appellant | Dharma Productions |
| Respondents | Bhallaram Choudhary |
INTRODUCTION
The case concerns the trademark dispute regarding the use of the title “Jigra” by Dharma Productions for its movie. The respondent alleged that the movie title infringed his registered trademark “Jigra” in the fields of education and entertainment, leading to an interim injunction against the film’s release.
The core legal question was whether the use of a movie title constitutes trademark infringement and whether an injunction to restrain the release of the film was justified under trademark law. The case also examined the distinction between the use of a mark as a film title and its use in the trade of goods or services, weighing the protection of trademark rights against freedom of artistic expression.
IMPORTANT PROVISIONS
- Trade Marks Act, 1999 Section 28: talks about the rights conferred by registration and exclusive rights to use the registered trademark and seek action for infringement.
- Trade Marks Act, 1999 Section 29: talks about the infringement of registered trademarks and prohibits the use of deceptively similar marks for identical or similar goods, covering likelihood of confusion, dilution of goodwill, and unfair advantage.
- Trade Marks Act, 1999 Section 135: states reliefs in suit for infringement or for passing off, including injunction and damages, account of profits.
- Trade Marks Act, 1999 Section 134: Jurisdiction of civil courts to grant injunctions and damages in trademark infringement cases.
BRIEF FACTS –
Dharma Production Pvt. Ltd., a prominent film production company, released the motion poster of their upcoming movie titled “Jigra” on 8th September 2023. The movie was scheduled for theatrical release on 11th October 2024, coinciding with the festival of Vijayadashami, and prior to release, the movie received all requisite clearances and certifications from the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) in both Hindi and Telugu languages on 3rd and 9th October 2024, respectively. “Jigra” is an action thriller featuring leading actors such as Alia Bhatt and was eagerly anticipated in the Indian film industry.
However, on the commercial front, Bhallaram Choudhary, the respondent in the dispute, claimed exclusive trademark rights over the term “Jigra” registered under Class 41, covering education and entertainment services. He raised concerns that the use of the movie title “Jigra” by Dharma Productions infringed upon his registered trademark rights, potentially causing commercial harm through brand confusion or dilution in the entertainment domain.
Relying on these trademark rights, Choudhary secured an ex parte ad-interim injunction from the Commercial Court at Jodhpur, thereby restraining Dharma Production from releasing the movie just days ahead of the planned premiere. This injunction posed significant commercial and reputational concerns for Dharma Production, as it halted promotional activities and threatened the viability of their scheduled release.
The dispute thus centered on whether the use of “Jigra” as a film title constitutes trademark infringement or unfair competition under relevant provisions of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, especially given that movie titles hold a niche position in intellectual property protection. It raised nuanced issues relating to the scope and limits of trademark protection vis-à-vis artistic expression and commercial usage in entertainment, necessitating judicial intervention to balance rights and interests.
ISSUES INVOLVED –
- Whether the use of the title “Jigra” for a film by Dharma Production amounts to trademark infringement of Bhallaram Choudhary’s registered mark under the TM Act, 1999.
- Whether an interim or ad-interim injunction against the film’s release is warranted on the ground of alleged infringement?
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY APPELLANTS –
- According to the counsels representing the appellants, the use of the title “Jigra” was strictly as a film title and artistic expression, and did not amount to the use of a trademark in respect of any goods or services in trade or commerce. They emphasized that the Trademarks Act, 1999, protects marks used as source identifiers in relation to goods or services and that titles of artistic works, such as films, do not fall within such a commercial scope, unless they serve as trademarks or brands identifying business goods or services. Consequently, the mere naming of a movie does not per se constitute trademark infringement.
- The appellant contended that they were not engaged in any commercial activity or business offerings under the name “Jigra,” making any claims of trademark violation under the Act unsustainable. They submitted that the movie’s title was used solely for cinematic identification and promotion and that the rights attached to movie titles are governed more by copyright and domain-specific intellectual property principles rather than trademark law, unless a countervailing commercial use was demonstrated.
- Further, Dharma Productions argued that their film had complied with all regulatory requirements, securing certifications from the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) in Hindi and Telugu, underscoring the legitimacy and bona fide nature of the movie’s release under that title.
- The appellant underscored that the respondent’s claim based on a trademark registered in Class 41, which covers education and entertainment services, did not encompass protection over a film title used in a completely different context, thus rendering any injunction against release premature and unjustified.
- Lastly, the appellant contended that the improvident grant of an ad-interim injunction against the movie’s release would cause substantial and irreparable loss financially and reputationally, as the production had already invested extensively in marketing, promotion, and production. They proposed that if any trademark infringement were ultimately found, monetary compensation or damages would suffice as an appropriate remedy, rather than obstructing artistic expression and business activity preemptively.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY RESPONDENTS –
- The counsels for the respondents argued that the registered proprietor of the trademark “Jigra” under Class 41, which includes services related to education, entertainment, and training. He claimed that his trademark rights were valid and enforceable under the Trade Marks Act, 1999, and that the title of the movie “Jigra” released by Dharma Productions infringed upon these rights. According to the respondent, the registration conferred upon him exclusive rights to use the mark “Jigra” in relation to entertainment and educational services, and therefore, the film’s use of the identical name was unauthorized and constituted a violation.
- Choudhary further contended that the release and promotion of the movie titled “Jigra” undercut the commercial value and distinctiveness of his registered trademark. He argued that the association of the mark with a high-profile film would likely create confusion among the public and the business community, leading to a dilution of his trademark’s goodwill and damaging his legitimate business interests in educational and entertainment services. This interference, in his view, was substantial and irreparable.
- In support of his contentions, the respondent highlighted that allowing the release of the film would undermine the spirit of trademark protection and allow Dharma Productions to unfairly capitalize on the goodwill associated with the registered “Jigra” mark. He sought injunctive relief to prevent such use and protect his commercial rights pending final adjudication.
- Further, the respondent emphasized that trademark laws aim to prevent consumer confusion and protect the proprietary rights of trademark holders, irrespective of the form of the infringing use. He maintained that artistic use as a movie title did not exempt Dharma Production from trademark laws, particularly where the registered trademark covered the domain of entertainment services directly related to the film industry.
- Challenging the appellant’s claim of non-commercial use, Choudhary argued that the extensive promotion and marketing of the film constituted a commercial exploitation of the mark, making the claim of mere “artistic use” untenable. Given the significant viewership and market impact of the film, the trademark infringement and its detrimental consequences on the respondent’s business were potentially magnified.
- Thus, the respondent sought judicial protection of his registered trademark through the grant of an injunction to prevent the film’s release under the disputed title and preserve his exclusive rights within the competitive market for education and entertainment services.
JUDGEMENT –
- The High Court stated that Dharma Production’s use of the term “Jigra” was purely as a movie title and an artistic expression and not in the trade or commerce of goods or services. This distinction was crucial because trademark protection under the Trade Marks Act primarily safeguards marks used as source identifiers in commercial transactions involving goods or services. The Court found no evidence indicating that “Jigra” was being used by Dharma Production as a brand name for products or services falling under the registered trademark categories claimed by the respondent.
- Second, the Court recognized the significant commercial investment and public anticipation surrounding the release of the movie, and that an injunction would result in disproportionate financial loss and prejudice to Dharma Production. In contrast, the respondent failed to demonstrate that the movie’s release would cause actual or imminent harm that could not be compensated monetarily. The amendment of remedies to damages and compensation was highlighted as a sufficient protection mechanism should trademark rights eventually be deemed infringed.
- Finally, the Court held that a registered trademark in Class 41 covering education and entertainment services does not necessarily confer an absolute right to prevent the use of a mark as a movie title, especially absent proof of confusion or unfair competition in the pertinent commercial field. The balance of convenience thus favored allowing the release of the movie, reserving the respondent’s right to pursue damages if genuine infringement were established on the merits.
- Consequently, the Court stayed the impugned Commercial Court injunction, permitting Dharma Production’s “Jigra” to release on schedule while listing the matter for further hearing. This ruling affirms the judicial preference to protect artistic freedom and economic interests, ensuring that trademark law is not disproportionately wielded to restrain creative expression unless clear commercial harm is evident.
CONCLUSION –
The Rajasthan High Court stayed the operation of the Commercial Court’s injunction order and permitted the release of “Jigra” on 11 October 2024, while reserving the respondent’s right to seek damages if any real trademark violation was proven later.
The case was listed for further hearing, but the order clarified that in the absence of direct trade in goods/services under the allegedly infringed mark, injunctive relief over a film title is untenable. The ruling is a significant affirmation of the distinction between movie titles and trademarks in IP law and highlights judicial reluctance to permit overbroad enforcement of trademarks in a manner that stifles creative works absent clear consumer confusion or unfair competition.
*This article has been written by Mayur Shrestha (Presidency University Bengaluru School of Law).
