Bigtree Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. v. D. Sharma and Anr.
Facts of the case
The Plaintiff being online ticketing venture “BOOKMYSHOW” started in 2007. It is pleaded that the said “BOOKMYSHOW.COM” is a leading entertainment booking portal in the country and has a significant share in the market with approximately 500 persons working for the company. It has also been pleaded that since 2010 “BOOKMYSHOW” has been a ticketing partner to the organizers of “Sunburn”, the music festival held in Goa, F1 Race, etc. It has a five year deal as the online ticketing partner for PVR Cinemas. It is pleaded that “BOOKMYSHOW” business has received extensive coverage in domestic and international media. Total revenues are said to be above Rs.150 crores per year. It is pleaded that by extensive sales, wide publicity, the plaintiff’s trade mark BOOKMYSHOW has acquired secondary meaning and has come to be exclusively associated with the plaintiff.
The defendants pleaded that plaintiff and defendants have been ticketing and promotional partners for several events/concerts, etc. The brand name and logo of the defendants and the plaintiff have appeared on various promotional contents, newspapers, pamphlets, sale tickets, etc. side by side. The first concert in this regard was held in 2011 titled as “Sham-E- Mehfil” which was a live Ghazal concert by Ghulam Ali and Ustad Ghulam Mustafa Khan held in Talkatora Stadium, New Delhi. The plaintiff was the online ticketing partner and the defendants were the online promotional partners. It has further been pleaded that in 2013, Formula-1 Event was organized by M/s. Jaypee Sports International Limited where similar situation prevailed. Similarly an event titled as “Sufiana Rang” featuring Sabri Brothers was held on 15.03.2014. It has further been pleaded that BOOKMY is a generic term used substantially in the industry and cannot be a subject matter of any trade mark. The registered trade mark of the plaintiff is „BOOKMYSHOW‟ and the defendants are using the mark „BOOKMYEVENT‟. The features of the mark and colour combination used are entirely different. There can be no question of any deception.
Issue
Whether the mark ‘BOOKMY’ has attained an exclusive meaning and that the plaintiff can claim exclusive rights on the same?
Judgment
The court stated that “The plaintiff is using the mark ‘BOOK MY SHOW’ and claims that the plaintiff has earned a strong reputation in the market. Based on this, it has been pleaded that the prefix ‘BOOKMY’ has attained exclusive meaning under which only the plaintiff can claim rights. It cannot be forgotten 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 further observed 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. That apart a closer look at the mark shows that prima facie the visual effect of both Trade Marks is not the same in the minds of the buyers. Prima facie the colour scheme, the font used by the defendant are entirely different and people are unlikely to be misguided or confused by the said trade names and looks of the defendant’s trade mark.
