2. Case summary
•
•
•
•
•
TIME Incorporated
versus
LOKESH Srivastava
Lokesh Srivastava and ‘Time Asia Sanskaran’ (TAS)
Similarity between the designs of TAS and Time
Case for trademark and copyright infringement
Insufficient evidence against Lokesh Srivastava
Court still took punitive action _ philosophy of exemplary corrective
justice
• Punitive action proportionate to seriousness of infringement
• First instance of court awarding punitive and compensatory damages
in the relevant area
3. Plaintiff v/s Defendant
Accusations of the Plaintiff
• Use of ‘TIME’ in identical script & font
• Discloses infringement of its trade mark
‘TIME’/’TIME ASIA’
• Claim in the magazine_office in NY, USA
• Confusion with the clients wanting to
place their ads
• Defendant printing, publishing and
distributing for sale of ‘TAS’ by using the
words ‘now in Hindi also a News
Magazine of International standards’
• This implied that it was merely a language
extension of the plaintiff’s magazine
TIME Incorporated
versus
LOKESH Srivastava
Demands from the
Defendant
• Decree of permanent injunction
restraining the defendants from using ‘TAS’..
• and from using ‘TIME ASIA’ or ‘TIME’ or any other
similar trade mark in any form
• and from using distinctive border, design, to
infringe plaintiff’s registered trademarks
• Order for delivery up of all goods bearing
the impugned mark
• Rs. 12.5 lacs
_actual damages suffered by plaintiff
• Rs. 5 lacs
_damaged reputation and good will
• Rs. 5 lacs
_punitive and exemplary damages
4. THE VERDICT
TIME Incorporated
versus
LOKESH Srivastava
• ‘TAS’ an unauthorised imitation of the plaintiff’s ‘reputed trademark’
• Defendant’s effort to create confusion in the minds of the readers and to get undue
financial advantages were identified
• 12.5 lacs damages not awarded: Basis of damage could not be provided
• 5 lacs for Loss of Reputation awarded: loss of reputation, goodwill and low
impression on readers
• 5 lacs punitive damages awarded : ‘to discourage and dishearten law breakers’
• Court especially mentions the purpose of punitive damages as to reduce the
profits by the illegal activity and to send a strong message to other potential law
breakers
5. GROUP ANALYSIS
TIME Incorporated
versus
LOKESH Srivastava
• Even though the case could not validate the monetary losses due to intangibles
like goodwill and reputation, the verdict sent out a strong message to people
who blatantly copy product names and identity
• There is confusion in the minds of the customer as automatic associations are
made to the more established brand _ Any disappointment with respect to the
quality of content is reflected as consumers badmouth the original brand
• ‘Me too brands’ like ‘Sonny’ and ‘Filips’ dilute existing brand names and the
significance they hold
• In this case, even though the court had trouble deciding, the punitive action was
taken on the grounds of clauses of the trademarks act
6. ADDITIONAL INFOrmation
TIME Incorporated
versus
LOKESH Srivastava
• Central Government Act
Section 29 in The Trade Marks Act, 1999
• Cadbury India Limited And Ors. vs Neeraj Food Products
25 May, 2007
• Hyundai Corporation vs Rajmal Ganna
14 September, 2007
• Carlsberg India Pvt. Ltd vs Radico Khaitan Ltd
20 December, 2011
