2001 (7) TMI 1180 - HC - Companies Law

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the website address www.dd.Now.com displayed during the domestic telecast of cricket matches is a graphic without commercial value or a branded graphic with commercial value.
2. Whether the display of the website address violates the exclusive marketing rights of the petitioner.
3. Whether the petitioner is entitled to an interim injunction restraining the respondent from superimposing any logo, commercial, or branded graphics not supplied by the petitioner during the telecast of cricket matches.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Whether the website address www.dd.Now.com displayed during the domestic telecast of cricket matches is a graphic without commercial value or a branded graphic with commercial value:
The core controversy revolves around whether the superimposed website address www.dd.Now.com is merely a graphic without commercial value or a branded graphic with commercial value. The petitioner argued that the graphic in question is a branded graphic with commercial value, as evidenced by the agreement between Prasar Bharti and TWI/Stracon, which allows for the sub-licensing of multimedia rights and sharing of revenue. The respondent contended that the website address is merely an address for the official website of Prasar Bharti and does not have commercial value. The court noted that the website www.Now.com is a brand like any other commercial brand and concluded that the display of the website address amounts to an advertisement or branded graphic with commercial value.

2. Whether the display of the website address violates the exclusive marketing rights of the petitioner:
The petitioner claimed that the display of the website address infringes upon its exclusive marketing rights for air-time conferred by the contract, which prohibits the display of any logo, commercial, or branded graphic not provided by the petitioner. The respondent argued that the website address does not fall within the category of logo, commercial, or branded graphic and that the petitioner's rights are confined to specific commercial time. The court found that the display of the website address is a commercial activity that encroaches upon the petitioner's exclusive marketing rights, as it is a branded graphic with commercial value. The court held that the respondent's interpretation of the contract clauses was incorrect and that the petitioner's exclusive marketing rights were being impinged.

3. Whether the petitioner is entitled to an interim injunction restraining the respondent from superimposing any logo, commercial, or branded graphics not supplied by the petitioner during the telecast of cricket matches:
The court considered the balance of convenience and the potential for irreparable loss or injury. The petitioner argued that the display of the website address would cause irreversible damage and financial loss. The respondent contended that any loss suffered by the petitioner could be quantified and recovered through arbitration. The court concluded that the display of the website address causes irreparable injury to the petitioner in terms of customers and viewership, and that the balance of convenience lies in favor of the petitioner. Consequently, the court granted the interim injunction, restraining the respondent from superimposing any logo, commercial, or branded graphics not supplied by the petitioner during the telecast of cricket matches.

Conclusion:
The court allowed the petition and granted the interim injunction, finding that the display of the website address www.dd.Now.com is a branded graphic with commercial value that infringes upon the petitioner's exclusive marketing rights. The court also disposed of the application under Order 1, Rule 10 CPC, allowing the applicants to approach the Arbitrator for further proceedings.

← Previous Next →