Delhi HC refuses BookMyShow an injunction against BookMyEvent

Stating that ‘BOOKMY’ is a common English term, the Delhi High Court has refused to grant a temporary injunction in favour of online booking platform ‘BOOKMYSHOW’ against its competitor, ‘BOOKMYEVENT’..The order was passed by a single Judge Bench of Justice Jayant Nath in a plea by ‘BOOKMYSHOW’ owner, Bigtree Entertainment Private Ltd (plaintiff). Bigtree is seeking to permanently restrain BookMyEvent along with its partners, proprietors, etc from using the mark “BOOKMYEVENT” or using the prefix “BOOKMY” as trade mark/trade name or as part of its corporate name, domain name or trading name in online ticketing services or any similar services..In December 2014, the Court had passed an ex parte interim injunction restraining the Defendants from using the mark ‘BOOKMYEVENT’ or using the prefix ‘BOOKMY’ as trade mark/trade name or part of its corporate name, domain name or trading name in respect of online ticketing services or any other similar services..However, in January, 2015, the above injunction order was kept in abeyance. Hence, another application was filed by the Plaintiff to restrain the Defendants. Plaintiff pleaded that since the Defendants have themselves given up by filing form TM-16 under the Trade Marks Act, 1999 for registration of their trade name, they are estopped from carrying on any activities under the said mark..Plaintiff Company argued that by extensive sales and wide publicity, its trade mark ‘BOOKMYSHOW’ has acquired secondary meaning and has come to be exclusively associated with the plaintiff. The prefix ‘BOOKMY’ is also an essential part of the Plaintiff’s registered trade mark, it further claimed..It was also informed that Plaintiff holds a registered trade mark for ‘BOOKMYSHOW’ in Class 41 and 42 and various other applications to consolidate Plaintiff’s right in BOOKMYSHOW and BOOKMY trade marks are pending before the competent authority..Plaintiff thus stated that he was “shocked to find that the Defendants have adopted the brand ‘Book My Event’ in relation to the same line of business as the Plaintiff’s ‘BOOKMYSHOW’ business.”.Plaintiff argued that Defendant operated a website which is a copy of the ‘BOOKMYSHOW’ website to deceive prospective customers and purchasing public. Since the Defendant’s mark is phonetically, visually and structurally similar to Plaintiff’s ‘BOOKMY’ and ‘BOOKMYSHOW’ trade marks, there is a likelihood of confusion..Defendant also attempted to defraud the Trade Marks Registry by applying for registration of the device/logo of the infringing trade mark under Class 41, it was further contended..The Defendant, on the other, argued that ‘BOOKMY’ is a generic term used substantially in the industry and cannot be a subject matter of any trade mark..As opposed to the Plaintiff’s registered trade mark ‘BOOKMYSHOW’, the Defendant stated that it was using the mark ‘BOOKMYEVENT’, the features and color combination of which are entirely different. Therefore, there could be no question of any deception..Agreeing with the Defendants, the Court noted that “BOOK MY” is a common English term..“Its link with booking for shows, events, films etc is but obvious. It is a common general term descriptive of the services which are sought to be provided, namely, booking of a show, event, movie etc.”, the Court said..The Court further observed that the prima facie visual effect of both trade names could not be said to be the same in the minds of the buyers as the colour scheme and the font used by the two are entirely different..Hence, it is unlikely that the customers would be misguided or confused by the trade names and looks of the Defendant’s trade mark, it said..It also rejected Plaintiff’s argument that since the Defendant amended its form for registering the impugned mark, he must be estopped from reclaiming the same..“It is manifest that this objection is meaningless. Simply because the application for registration of a trademark was amended may not amount to relinquishment of any right to use the trademark. The plea is completely misplaced”, it observed..The Court thus concluded that the Plaintiff had failed to make out a prima facie case to get an injunction order in its favour..“Plaintiff has failed to make out a prima facie case. I do not see any reason to grant any injunction order in favour of the plaintiff. I dismiss the applications of the plaintiff i.e. IA No. 25542/2014 and 12014/2016.”, it ordered..Bookmyshow was represented by Senior Advocate Sandeep Sethi with Advocate Swathi Sukumar, Surya Rajappan and V Akshay..Bookmyevent was represented by Advocates MK Miglani, Jithin M George, Vivek Kishore and Rahul Chandra..Read the order: