Rajat Sharma's India TV has won an Internet domain case against a US-based firm with the Delhi High Court restraining the latter from using a web address to broadcast Indian TV programmes in its original form.
NEW DELHI: Rajat Sharma's India TV has won an Internet domain case against a US-based firm with the Delhi High Court restraining the latter from using a web address to broadcast Indian TV programmes in its original form.
In its petition, India TV had alleged that the Internet domain, indiatvlive.com, used by the US-based India Broadcast Live, was similar to its trademark and that the plaintiffs had no legitimate right over the domain name.
In an interim order delivered by Justice S.K. Kaul in January, the US-based firm was restrained from using any domain name containing the words India TV as also barred from transferring the rights to any other entity.
Now, in the final order this month, even though the court has permitted the defendants to use the domain name, it has nevertheless required a disclaimer to be placed prominently next to the logo of Indiatvlive.com.
The court said the disclaimer should read: "The website has no connection, affiliation or association whatsoever with India TV, the Indian Hindi news and current affairs television channel."
However, the defendants shifted to another domain name indiabroadcastlive.com and the court has taken cognisance of the same.
The court observed that when the impugned domain name is typed, a redirection notice says the website is not operational due to interim orders passed and visitors are automatically redirected to indiabroadcastlive.com.
"Thus, the respondents have rectified the position," Justice Kaul said in his order and added: "In view of the aforesaid, I do not deem it appropriate to proceed further with the petition and the petition stands cancelled."
The court also disallowed the defendants from proceeding against India TV with a suit filed in the district courts in Arizona.
"With the growth of e-commerce and commercial activity over the world wide web, it has become possible for business to be conducted across the globe without actual presence in every place," the court said.
"The present case, inter alia, involves the question of jurisdiction in such a situation."
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}