The Bombay High Court has refused to grant interim relief in a trademark infringement and passing-off suit filed by astrologer Rajeev Prakash Agarwal against Tata Play Limited over the use of the mark “Astro Duniya” for an astrology television channel, holding that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of infringement or passing off.
The plaintiff claimed that he had been providing astrological and spiritual services since 2005 under the mark “Astro Dunia” and that Tata Play’s use of “TATA PLAY Astro Duniya” for astrology-related content was deceptively similar to his registered mark. He sought an interim injunction restraining the defendants from using the impugned mark.
Justice Sharmila U. Deshmukh noted that the plaintiff’s registration was only for a composite label mark consisting of the words “Astro Dunia” along with a device of a star, and the registration had been granted with a disclaimer that the registration would not confer exclusive rights over descriptive matter. The Court held that the plaintiff could not assert exclusivity over the disclaimed words forming part of the mark.
The Court observed that the words “Astro” and “Dunia” are descriptive of astrology services and that their combination merely conveys the meaning “world of astrology.” The Court therefore concluded that the mark was descriptive and not inherently distinctive. The Court held:
“ The Plaintiff cannot predicate its case of infringement on the part of mark which stands disclaimed by contending that the disclaimed part has been copied by the Defendant. The disclaimed portion cannot form the basis for infringement.”
Examining the rival marks, the Court held that they were visually and structurally different. The court found that the plaintiff’s mark was a composite label with a star device, while the defendant’s mark appeared with the prominent house mark “TATA PLAY”, & reference to only Astro Duniya in the website is in descriptive sense.
The Court also found that the rival services were materially different. While the plaintiff offered personalised astrology consultations, the defendant operated a DTH television channel broadcasting astrology content to subscribers.
“ The chances of likelihood of confusion are remote as the Defendant’s DTH service is distinct from the personalised astrology services rendered by the Plaintiff.”
The Court observed that the services differed in nature, mode of delivery, trade channels and target consumers, and therefore could not be considered competing services.
On the issue of passing off, the Court held that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate sufficient goodwill or reputation associated with the mark. The Court noted inconsistencies in the plaintiff’s documents and found that many records referred to a separate company, Maa Astro Duniya Pvt. Ltd., without clarifying the relationship with the plaintiff’s proprietorship. Consequently, while dismissing the application, the Court concluded:
“There is no prima facie case made out of infringement of trade mark or passing off for grant of interim injunction.”
Cases Referred
Registrar of Trade Marks v. Ashok Chandra Rakhit, (1955) 1 SCC 655
Aegon Life Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Aviva Life Insurance Co. India Ltd., 2019 SCC OnLine Bom 1612
Balkrishna Hatcheries v. Nandos International Ltd., 2007 Vol. 109(2) Bom. L. R. 0911
Cadila Healthcare Ltd. v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd., (2001) 5 SCC 73
Appearances
Mr. Rashmin Khandekar, Mr. Anand Mohan and Ms. Grishma Mody i/b Kartikeya and Associates for Plaintiff. Mr. Rohan Kadam, R. Vaidya, Sanjeel Kadam and Ms. Nitisha Lad i/b Kadam and Co. for Defendant No. 1. Ms. Vaishali Bhingade for Defendant No. 2.
