The Supreme Court today decided not to intervene in a trademark dispute involving the movie title “Jigra,” stating that the film is already in public domain. The petitioner, who operates under the “Jigra” brand for his online teaching service, had claimed that the film’s title infringed on his trademark rights.
The bench, led by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud and including Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, heard the case where the petitioner argued that the use of “Jigra” by Dharma Productions for their film violated his trademark. Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing the film’s producers, countered that the movie had been extensively promoted and a significant amount of Rs. 90 crores had been spent on nationwide promotions.
During the proceedings, Justice Pardiwala inquired about the meaning of “Jigra” and its relevance to the case. Singhvi clarified that “Jigra” commonly refers to someone with a strong and brave heart, emphasizing that it is a term widely used in general parlance. He also highlighted that the petitioner’s business is in a completely different sector from filmmaking, focusing primarily on education and training.
Singhvi further argued that there was no reasonable basis for confusion between the film and the petitioner’s online educational services, questioning the timing and motive behind the lawsuit. He suggested that the case was an attempt by the petitioner to leverage the entertainment category of his trademark registration to claim rights over unrelated domains.
Chief Justice Chandrachud, reflecting on the arguments, stated, “The film is already in the public domain. Sorry, we’re not going to intervene; we’ve already stated that the movie has been released.” This comment effectively dismissed the petitioner’s request for judicial intervention to halt the film’s distribution or use of the title.
This resolution underscores the complexities of trademark law, especially when similar names are used across different industries. The Supreme Court’s stance in this case reaffirms the principle that the mere existence of a trademark in one category does not necessarily preclude its use in another, particularly when there is no direct competition or likelihood of confusion between the concerned parties.
