Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Media Legal Issues | Time Inc. v/s Lokesh Srivastava
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×

Introducing the official SlideShare app

Stunning, full-screen experience for iPhone and Android

Text the download link to your phone

Standard text messaging rates apply

Media Legal Issues | Time Inc. v/s Lokesh Srivastava

205
views

Published on

Published in: Business

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
205
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
2
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. TIME Incorporated versus LOKESH Srivastava Daksh Kalia Rohit Rohan Sidharth Uchil Legal Issues in Communications PGP – 19 | MICA
  • 2. Case summary • • • • • TIME Incorporated versus LOKESH Srivastava Lokesh Srivastava and ‘Time Asia Sanskaran’ (TAS) Similarity between the designs of TAS and Time Case for trademark and copyright infringement Insufficient evidence against Lokesh Srivastava Court still took punitive action _ philosophy of exemplary corrective justice • Punitive action proportionate to seriousness of infringement • First instance of court awarding punitive and compensatory damages in the relevant area
  • 3. Plaintiff v/s Defendant Accusations of the Plaintiff • Use of ‘TIME’ in identical script & font • Discloses infringement of its trade mark ‘TIME’/’TIME ASIA’ • Claim in the magazine_office in NY, USA • Confusion with the clients wanting to place their ads • Defendant printing, publishing and distributing for sale of ‘TAS’ by using the words ‘now in Hindi also a News Magazine of International standards’ • This implied that it was merely a language extension of the plaintiff’s magazine TIME Incorporated versus LOKESH Srivastava Demands from the Defendant • Decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from using ‘TAS’.. • and from using ‘TIME ASIA’ or ‘TIME’ or any other similar trade mark in any form • and from using distinctive border, design, to infringe plaintiff’s registered trademarks • Order for delivery up of all goods bearing the impugned mark • Rs. 12.5 lacs _actual damages suffered by plaintiff • Rs. 5 lacs _damaged reputation and good will • Rs. 5 lacs _punitive and exemplary damages
  • 4. THE VERDICT TIME Incorporated versus LOKESH Srivastava • ‘TAS’ an unauthorised imitation of the plaintiff’s ‘reputed trademark’ • Defendant’s effort to create confusion in the minds of the readers and to get undue financial advantages were identified • 12.5 lacs damages not awarded: Basis of damage could not be provided • 5 lacs for Loss of Reputation awarded: loss of reputation, goodwill and low impression on readers • 5 lacs punitive damages awarded : ‘to discourage and dishearten law breakers’ • Court especially mentions the purpose of punitive damages as to reduce the profits by the illegal activity and to send a strong message to other potential law breakers
  • 5. GROUP ANALYSIS TIME Incorporated versus LOKESH Srivastava • Even though the case could not validate the monetary losses due to intangibles like goodwill and reputation, the verdict sent out a strong message to people who blatantly copy product names and identity • There is confusion in the minds of the customer as automatic associations are made to the more established brand _ Any disappointment with respect to the quality of content is reflected as consumers badmouth the original brand • ‘Me too brands’ like ‘Sonny’ and ‘Filips’ dilute existing brand names and the significance they hold • In this case, even though the court had trouble deciding, the punitive action was taken on the grounds of clauses of the trademarks act
  • 6. ADDITIONAL INFOrmation TIME Incorporated versus LOKESH Srivastava • Central Government Act Section 29 in The Trade Marks Act, 1999 • Cadbury India Limited And Ors. vs Neeraj Food Products 25 May, 2007 • Hyundai Corporation vs Rajmal Ganna 14 September, 2007 • Carlsberg India Pvt. Ltd vs Radico Khaitan Ltd 20 December, 2011
  • 7. THE END TIME Incorporated versus LOKESH Srivastava