The Delhi High Court has granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction against the www.timesofindiaa.news (Defendants), and restrained the Defendant no. 1, its directors, assigns in business, licensees, franchisees, and any person claiming right through/for them, from using the mark “TIMES OF INDIA” or taglines or any other identical/similar trademark/domain name/logo, either as a trademark/trade name/logo or as part of domain name, social media posts, creatives, in electronic or physical media or in any manner whatsoever.
The High Court also restrained the Defendant no. 1 and its representatives from scraping, reproducing, publishing, communicating to the public, or in any manner utilizing the Plaintiff’s copyrighted original literary works, the associated bylines of the Plaintiff’s authors and journalists, the ‘TOI’ device mark/logo, the website’s unique user interface (UI), visual trade dress, or any other identical/deceptively similar artistic work or compilation, on the impugned domain ‘www.timesofindiaa.news’, any other website, social media platforms, or in any electronic/physical media whatsoever.
Defendant nos. 2 and 3 are directed to take down the website/webpages at Defendant no. 1’s domain and/or any other John Doe infringing websites/domain names/webpages which may contain the trademark THE TIMES OF INDIA or any mark deceptively similar thereto, upon being so notified by the Plaintiff, and the same be transferred to the Plaintiff. Defendant nos. 2 and 3 are directed to disclose the Basic Subscriber Information and Account Registration details of Defendant no. 1 as may be available and also for any other John Doe infringing websites/domain names/webpages upon being so notified by the Plaintiff.
A single Judge Bench of Justice Tushar Rao Gedela observed that the trademark “The Times of India” has been recognized as a well-known trademark by the Trade Marks registry in the year 2024. It noted that the relief granted over the registered trademarks ‘TOI’, ‘Times of India’ and the device mark, the popularity indicated by the steady growth of readership, the sales and promotion figures provided by the Plaintiff over the years, and the digital reach achieved by its App, prima facie, evidence a strong case in favour of the Plaintiff.
The Bench observed that the balance of convenience appears to be tilted in favour of the Plaintiff at this stage. It further observed that the Plaintiff would suffer irreparable loss and injury to not only its reputation and goodwill but also financial and monetary loss to innocent intending advertisers from the public in general, which may not be adequately compensated in monetary terms in case an ex-parte ad-interim injunction is not granted.
Briefly, the Plaintiff claims to have been established in the year 1838 by the first publication of the edition of the ‘Times of India’ and claims to have a legacy spanning 188 years. The Plaintiff claims that the mark ‘TIMES’ and the acronym ‘TOI’ have gained such reputation that they have turned into source identifiers synonymous with the Plaintiff’s standards of journalism, acquiring a secondary meaning. The Plaintiff is the registered proprietor of the trademark ‘The Times of India’ with the first registration dated July 30, 1943 in Class 16, and the trademark has been declared a well-known trademark vide the Trade Marks Journal 2144 on Feb 19, 2024. The Plaintiff conceptualized a distinct visual identity in the year 2010 and adopted the unique ‘TOI’ device, claiming it to be an original artistic work.
In the third week of March 2026, the Plaintiff came across the impugned websites illegally and unauthorizedly using the Plaintiff’s well-known trademark and device mark on its website in relation to identical services. Defendant nos. 1 to 6, in order to create an atmosphere of trust, embedded a direct hyperlink to the Plaintiff’s official website and represented themselves to be associated with the Plaintiff by showing authentic and verified official social media handles. The impugned websites scrape, reproduce, and publish news articles curated by the Plaintiff and copy the content verbatim, which extends to the unauthorized appropriation of the specific bylines of its journalists, namely R.K. Laxman and Vishwa Mohan.
The Plaintiff alleges that such usurpation constitutes a flagrant violation of exclusive rights under Section 51 of the Copyrights Act, 1957, and infringement of inherent personality and publicity rights. Defendant nos. 1 and 6 are actively employing a deceitful digital ‘bait-and-switch’ stratagem to unlawfully enrich itself at the immediate expense of the Plaintiff.
Appearances:
Advocates Hemant Singh, Mamta R. Jha, Akhil Saxena and Palak Batra, for the Plaintiff
Advocate Badar Mahmood, for the Defendant
