IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
  
  
  
  CS(OS) 286/2012
  
  
  
  NOKIA CORPORATION and ORS ..... Plaintiff
  
  Through: Mr. N.K. Kaul, Sr. Adv. with
  
  Mr. Neeraj Grover, Adv.
  
  
versus
  
  
  
  MOVIEEXPRESS and ORS ..... Defendant
  
  Through: None
  
  
  
  CORAM:
  
   HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR
  
  
  
   O R D E R
  
   06.02.2012
  
  
  
  I.A. No.2229/2012
  
  
  
  Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
  
  
  
  CS(OS) No.286/2012
  
  Issue summons in the suit and notice on the application by
  registered AD covers, speed post, ordinary process as well as courier,
  returnable on 2.3.2012.
  
  I.A. No.2228/2012
  
  Notice for the date fixed.
  
  Arguing the application for grant of ex parte ad interim
  injunction, Mr. N.K. Kaul, learned Senior Counsel representing the
  plaintiffs, submits that the trademark ?Nokia? is a registered trademark
  of the plaintiffs and is a well-known trademark in terms of provisions of
  the Trademark Act, 1999. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that the
  trade mark ?Nokia? is famous and well known trade mark/trade name in
  relation to any goods or services which not only makes an immediate
  association in the mind of the consumers and public at large with the
  products and services of the plaintiffs but also assures the consumer
  that each product and service bearing the mark ?Nokia? is of the utmost
  quality and would guarantee complete consumer satisfaction. Learned
  counsel further submits that the said trademark ?Nokia? is registered in
  the name of the plaintiffs in respect to various goods and services as
  detailed in paragraph 13 of the plaint. Learned counsel further submits
  that defendant no.2 is the production house and defendant no.3 is the
  producer of a film and they had contacted the Marketing Division of the
  plaintiffs to produce the film named ?Mr. Nokia?, in Telugu language.
  Learned counsel further submits that neither the Marketing Division nor
  the Legal Division of the plaintiff had given its approval and consent
  for screening the film under the name of ?Mr. Nokia? or any name
  deceptively or phonetically similar thereto. Learned counsel also submits
  that already the defendants have started advertising and airing songs to
  publicize the said movie containing reference to the mark ?Nokia? and/or
  ?Mr. No. Keyia?. Learned counsel has drawn attention of this Court to the
  letter dated 8.3.2011 sent by the said defendants to the plaintiffs
  wherein they have clearly stated that almost 75 per cent of the movie
  songs will be based on mobile phones of the plaintiffs and the cellphone
  
  would be the most important element in the film. Learned counsel thus submits that if the right of the plaintiff is not protected, then the
  plaintiffs will suffer irreparable loss and injury to its well-
  established reputation and the defendants, on the other hand, will gain
  advantage to ride on the reputation of the plaintiffs.
  
  I have heard learned Senior Counsel representing the plaintiffs at
  considerable length and have also gone through the documents placed on
  record.
  
  Till the next date of hearing the defendants, their directors,
  partners or proprietors, as the case may be, their distributors,
  officers, servants, representatives, theatre owners, exhibitors,
  multiplexes, radio channels, online music websites and agents are
  restrained from advertising, airing songs, publishing, publicizing,
  offering for viewing the impugned movie under the title ?Mr. Nokia?
  and/or ?Mr. No. Keyia? and/or ?Mr. Nav-kia? and/or offering the songs
  containing the reference to the mark ?Nokia? and/or ?No.Keyia? and/or any
  other identical or deceptively similar (phonetically, structurally or
  visually) mark to the plaintiffs? registered trade mark ?Nokia? as also
  from doing any such act amounting to passing off and/or dilution of the
  plaintiffs? well known trademark ?Nokia?.
  
  Provisions of Order XXXIX Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure,
  1908 shall be complied with by the plaintiffs within a period of three
  days.
  
  This order shall become effective from the date it is served on the
  defendants.
  
  DASTI.
  
  KAILASH GAMBHIR, J
  
  FEBRUARY 06, 2012/tp
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  $ 39