ITV

Category: High Court

  • NTO 2.0 update: Broadcasters conclude their argument before Bombay HC

    NTO 2.0 update: Broadcasters conclude their argument before Bombay HC

    KOLKATA:  As the ongoing legal battle between broadcasters and the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India(TRAI) in Bombay High Court nears its ending, the broadcasters have concluded their argument.

    On 18 September, the solicitor general will open for TRAI before the court. TRAI chairman R S Sharma said earlier that non-implementation of NTO 2.0 will bring back discriminatory practices and create a regulatory vacuum. He said that the tariff order has brought the perfect balance between consumer choice and industry benefits.  

    Sharma mentioned that while it has given new power to the consumers to watch channels of their own choice, it has provided broadcasters the liberty to decide the pricing of their channels, distributors to have an independent source of revenue through network capacity fees.

    Earlier during a hearing on 2 September, senior advocate Harish Salve argued that NTO 2.0 contradicts provisions of the Indian constitution that guarantees the freedom of speech and expression to all citizens.

    Amid Covid2019 pandemic, TRAI directed the broadcasters on 24 July to comply with the new amendments by 10 August, which created another round of tension and the broadcasters went back to Bombay High Court. The High Court ordered TRAI to not take any coercive action against the stakeholders until the verdict comes out.

  • Delhi High Court stays the broadcast of Sudarshan News’ communal show

    Delhi High Court stays the broadcast of Sudarshan News’ communal show

    A major controversy erupted when Sudarshan News CMD & editor-in-chief Suresh Chavanke released a promo of his forthcoming episode UPSC Jihad of his television show Bindas Bol on Aug 25.

    The promo clearly used disturbing and communal words and was themed on the exposé of Muslims who have infiltrated the highest working body in the government, our executive branch. The show was supposed to be aired on Aug 28 at 8 pm.

    The promo, once released, immediately attracted outrage from journalists, police professionals, and IPS & IAS officers. IPS Association even issued a statement condemning the ‘communal and irresponsible piece of journalism’.

    On Aug 28, the Delhi High Court stayed the proposed broadcast of the show after former and current students of Jamia Milia Islamia, filed a plea seeking a ban on the telecast. This came even as the Supreme Court on Friday declined to impose a pre-broadcast ban on the channel from airing the programme.

    The plea alleged the show was an attempt to “defame, attack and incite hatred” against Jamia Milia Islamia, its alumni and the Muslim community at large. The HC stayed the broadcast until September 7.

    The court also directed Sudarshan News to file a reply before September 1 on the notice issued by the ministry of information & broadcasting on the complaints it received against the show.

    Justice Navin Chawla also issued a notice to the I&B ministry on the plea filed through advocate Shadan Farasat contending that the trailer of the show has “openly engaged” in hate speech.

    Appearing for the I&B ministry, advocate Anurag Alhuwalia, the central government’s standing counsel, accepted the notice, following which the matter was posted for hearing on September 7.

    The petition said the proposed broadcast along with the trailer violates the programme code set out under the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, read with the Cable Television Networks Rules 1994.

    “The proposed broadcast and trailer also constitute hate speech and criminal defamation and is an offense under Sections 153A (1), 153B(1), 295A and 499 of the Indian Penal Code,” the plea read.

    After the order was passed, the show that was supposed to be telecast was not aired. Instead, Chavanke conducted another show where he accused Jamia Milia Islamia students and alumni of using the court to get the show stopped.

    The Delhi High Court on Saturday further refused to lift its stay order. This came a day after the High Court stayed the broadcast of the show.

  • Bombay HC orders conflicting parties to present submissions on the validity of sec11 of TRAI Act by 31 August

    Bombay HC orders conflicting parties to present submissions on the validity of sec11 of TRAI Act by 31 August

    KOLKATA: Amid the ongoing tussle between the Broadcasters and the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India( TRAI) regarding the amended new tariff order (NTO 2.0), the Bombay High Court’s division bench comprising of Justice A A Sayed, Justice Anuja Prabbhudesai heard the case on Thursday. The bench has ordered the parties to submit additional submissions on the validity of section 11 of the TRAI Act by 31 August. 

    The bench will hear the matter finally on 2, 7 and 8 September and will pronounce judgment following the hearings. As per today’s order, regulations will remain in force but no coercive steps can be taken by the regulator. It also added the Indian government is at liberty to file an affidavit on the validity of section 11 if needed. 

    Meanwhile, TRAI in a recent notification directed all broadcasters to comply with the provision of NTO 2.0 by 26 August, substituting the earlier timeline of 10 August as the final judgement on the case was expected on 24 August. The confusion regarding the implementation appears to persist as again the pronouncement of verdict has been postponed to next month. 

    Earlier this year,  the power to issue tariff orders by TRAI was challenged by broadcasters when they filed a writ petition on NTO 2.0 against the authority. “Violation of the mandatory principles of Section 11(4) of the TRAI Act and thus acting in a matter that is inconsistent with the TRAI Act, 1997” – was mentioned as one of the broad grounds of the challenge.

  • Emami VS HUL: Bombay high court restrains Emami to not use ‘Glow & Handsome’ trademark until further notice

    Emami VS HUL: Bombay high court restrains Emami to not use ‘Glow & Handsome’ trademark until further notice

    NEW DELHI: In a recent development, the Bombay High Court has restrained FMCG company, Emami, to not use its ‘Glow and Handsome’ trademark till further notice, saying that prima facie Hindustan Unilever (HUL) had used it first in its brand.

    The order was passed by Justice SC Gupte on Monday on an application filed by HUL under the trademark act. HUL’s counsels submitted documents which showed that the mark was adopted by the company in September 2018, and it has also asked for permission from the Food and drug administration to change the name ‘Fair and Lovely’ to ‘Glow and Handsome’, which was cleared on 2 August 2020.

    HUL had recently dropped the word ‘Fair’ from its skin cream product for men and women and renamed it to ‘Glow & Handsome.’

    HUL had approached the court last week seeking to restrain Emami from using the trademark.

    However, Emami claimed that it was the proprietor of this trademark, and was going to launch a skincare cream for men under the same name.

    "… plaintiff (HUL) prime facie appears to be a prior adopter and user of the mark "Glow & Handsome"," the high court said in its order.

    The court noted that the maker of Dove soap and Surf detergent already launched its goods in the market with this trademark whereas Emami was still at the stage of adopting a process of launching its goods.

    "Its (Emami) application for registration of that mark is also of a subsequent date," the order said. It also said that HUL had advertised its brand sufficiently.

    "At this threshold stage, it is reasonable to see that there is a concrete likelihood of confusion and deception in the public, if identical marks are allowed to hold the field for popular and much sold commodities" said the court.

    The judge said that until the final disposal of the matter, Emami deserves to be restrained from using the name ‘Glow and Handsome.’

    The next hearing will take place in two weeks.

    Follow Tellychakkar for the consumer facing news & entertainment

  • Bombay high court’s NTO 2.0 verdict on 24 August

    Bombay high court’s NTO 2.0 verdict on 24 August

    KOLKATA: The Bombay high court's verdict on the NTO 2.0 case between broadcasters and the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) is expected on 24 August. Until then, all parties have agreed to wait before taking any further decision. 

    During a hearing last week, the court asked both parties to follow “gentlemen’s word” and TRAI also assured to not take any action against broadcasters who haven't yet implemented NTO 2.0.

    During Friday’s hearing, the case was listed before the original bench comprising justice AA Sayed and justice Anuja Prabhudesai. While the legal battle is ongoing since long, TRAI citing a regulatory vacuum released a fresh directive on 24 July irking the broadcasters who have already been battling with the impact of the pandemic.

    It asked broadcasters to publish details including maximum retail price per month of channels and maximum retail price per month of bouquets of channels, the composition of bouquets and also amended reference interconnected offer (RIO) and other details on their websites by 10 August.

    Follow Tellychakkar for the consumer facing news & entertainment

  • Bombay high court permits persons above 65 years to work on film, TV sets

    Bombay high court permits persons above 65 years to work on film, TV sets

    MUMBAI: The Bombay high court has quashed Maharashtra government’s order for age limit on set. After constant appeal from the Indian Motion Pictures Producers Association (IMPPA) and Cine And TV Artistes' Association (CINTAA), the high court has finally allowed all people above 65 years of age associated with the entertainment industry to resume work on the sets of films and TV shows.

    A bench of chief justice Dipankar Datta and justice AS Gadkari, while hearing two petitions filed by the Indian Motion Pictures Producers Association (IMPPA) and actor Pramod Pandey, have taken this decision.

    The division bench of judges has allowed all producers, technicians, workers and artists to work. However, they will have to strictly adhere to the advisories which are applicable to all senior citizens as is applicable in case of all other citizens in the state.

    Earlier the high court had questioned the state government on the concerned matter and asked how it can stop senior citizens from working and earning a livelihood.

    The court had, during the hearing, appointed senior counsel Sharad Jagtiani as amicus curiae in the matter. IMPPA and television artist Promod Pande were represented by advocate Ashok Saraogi.

    According to IFTPC chairman TV wing JD Majethia there is certain ambiguity in the order. It is Bombay high court’s judgement but the film and television fraternity will also need to have clarification from Maharashtra government. He adds, “The major challenge in this issue is that insurance companies are not giving insurance cover for people above the age of 60 years. And as per the protocols, every member present on the set needs to have Covid2019 insurance cover. We will reach Maharashtra government for clarity, we will also speak to our lawyers to understand the order and will appeal to the government to  revise copy.”

    Earlier IMPPA President TP Aggarwal had stated that  that for all senior producers, directors, actors and technicians the creative medium is the only source of income and the guideline was not practical and was not fair as in no other profession this condition was imposed. After sending requests many times, the association had to move the high court for demanding the rights of earning one’s livelihood for these senior people from the fraternity.

    Apart from that, Cine And TV Artistes' Association (CINTAA) senior vice president and actor Manoj Joshi had met the governor of Maharashtra Bhagat Singh Koshyari to discuss this issue. CINTAA had also sent letters to chief minister Uddhav Thackeray, minister Subash Desai and former chief minister Devendra Fadnavis.
     

  • Bombay high court grants interim relief to HUL in brand name row with Emami

    Bombay high court grants interim relief to HUL in brand name row with Emami

    NEW DELHI: Hindustan Unilever heaved a sigh of relief as the Bombay high court gave an interim relief in the case with Emami involving HUL's rebranding of its skin cream for men Glow & Handsome. Reportedly, Emami had claimed that it already has a cream named Glow and Handsome.

    Last week, HUL rebranded its best-selling range of products Fair & Lovely to Glow & Lovely. the men's fairness range was also renamed from Fair & Lovely to Glow & Handsome. Following this, Emami had responded with a legal action against the brand for copying its brand name Glow & Handsome.

    The court has asked Emami to give seven days’ prior notice before striking a legal battle on the trademark.

    According to reports, justice BP Colabwalla has ordered the notice after hearing an application filed by HUL under the Trade Marks Act seeking an injunction against Emami from issuing “groundless threats” in view of the use of its trademark Glow and Handsome.

    HUL in its petition also sought at least seven days clear notice before Emami can initiate any legal proceedings against the company. HUL called Emami's threats of legal action 'groundless.'

    The court observed, "Prima facie it does appear that having filed its trademark application in September 2018 and subsequently on 25 June 2020 for the mark ‘GLOW & HANDSOME’, the Plaintiff (HUL)is the prior adopter of the said mark".

    The court also directed Emami to give HUL seven days prior written notice before initiating legal proceedings against it and posted the matter for further hearing on July 27.

    “The statements made by the defendant (Emami) do amount to a threat, however, whether they are unlawful or groundless, that is something that will have to be decided after hearing both the sides,” the court further said as reported by a leading daily.

    Follow Tellychakkar for the consumer facing news & entertainment

  • Tata Sky seeks to amend its writ petition against TRAI in the tariff order case

    Tata Sky seeks to amend its writ petition against TRAI in the tariff order case

    MUMBAI: The direct-to-home (DTH) platform Tata Sky has sought to amend the writ petition which was filed earlier before the Delhi High Court against the new tariff order introduced by The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI). Alongside the ongoing case, Tata Sky seeks to amend the present petition by adding a challenge to the new amendments which was brought by the regulatory body at the beginning of 2020.

    Tata Sky has mentioned that following amendments are “arbitrary, irrational, unreasonable, without jurisdiction and seek to be expropriatory”.

    The petitioner has submitted that the reduction of Network Capacity Fee (NCF) is irrational and unreasonable as it does not ensure reasonable profit to the DTH platform. According to the petitioner, the TRAI has not carried out any tariff determining exercise before making the amendment regarding NCF.

    TRAI has also reduced the chargeability of the NCF in respect of every additional television to only 40 per cent of the original NCF, in a "multi-tv household".  It has also asked to reduce the carriage fee chargeable by a DPO against a new television channel from 20 paisa for Standard Definition (SO) per channel per month for a penetration upto 5 per cent, to a cap of maximum Rs 4 lakh for SD Channels. Such caps are also prescribed for HD Channels.

    “Through the capping of the Price of a Pay-Channel which could be put into a bouquet, the Distribution Fees available to the DPO has also been unreasonably and irrationally reduced,” the petitioner submitted.  It also added that the amendment would reduce  the  capability  of  a  DPO  to  form  bouquets  of channels which are priced above Rs 12 by the broadcaster. Moreover, a compulsory free carriage of Doordarshan channels has also been mentioned as unreasonable.

    “The Petitioner submits that the Impugned Amendments 2020 reduce the revenue generated by the Petitioner No.1 in such manner that even the basic right of the Petitioner to recover the basic cost of its network has been negated. The Petitioner submits that during the course of the present petition before this Hon'ble Court, the Respondent has failed to prove, establish or even display the advantages of the 2017 Regime,” it says.  

    Hence, Tata sky has sought to make additional grounds which may be allowed to be included in the main writ petition. According to the company, the impugned amendments 2020 do not take into account relevant matters and takes into account irrelevant issues like foreign consumers to subscribe television channels on the ala-carte basis by making bouquet of channels expensive. The DTH network is thus being made available to the consumer in such manner that it would not be able to even recover its operational or capital costs.

  • Plea against IPL: Madras HC issues notice to BCCI, Health Ministry

    Plea against IPL: Madras HC issues notice to BCCI, Health Ministry

    MUMBAI: The Madras High Court has ordered to issue notices to the BCCI and the union health ministry regarding a PIL against conducting IPL matches in view of the coronavirus outbreak.

    Adjourning the case, a bench comprising Justices MM Sundaresh and Krishnan Ramasamy sought responses from the ministry  and the BCCI before 23 March.

    The PIL had sought a direction to BCCI not to conduct IPL matches from 29 March to 24 May in view of the virus outbreak.

    The virus that first appeared in Wuhan city of China has spread to over 46 countries and entered India earlier this month.

    The country’s biggest cricketing event is scheduled between 29 March and 24 April.

  • Coronavirus: PIL filed in Madras HC against conducting IPL

    Coronavirus: PIL filed in Madras HC against conducting IPL

    MUMBAI: A PIL has been filed in the Madras High Court requesting the government not to allow the Board of Cricket Council of India from holding IPL in view of the coronavirus outbreak.

    According to media reports, the PIL is likely to come up before a division bench of Justices MM Sundresh and Krishnan Ramaswamy on 12 March.

    The petitioner said, “As per the website of the World Health Organisation, there was no specific medicine or to prevent or to treat the COVID-19 (Corona Virus Disease 2019) as on date.”

    The petitioner also said that the virus has been spreading all over the world rapidly and creating panic across countries, according to media reports.

    The virus that first appeared in Wuhan city of China has spread to over 46 countries and entered India earlier this month. Around 60 positive cases have been confirmed in India as of Wednesday.

    Meanwhile, the country’s biggest cricketing event is scheduled between 29 March and 24 April with the first match being played between Mumbai Indians and Chennai Super Kings.

    The most affected country in Europe is Italy, wherein over 10,000 confirmed cases have been reported as of Wednesday. “The Italy Federation League, one of the oldest leagues in the world, has been severely affected and the football games were being played behind closed doors with no fans allowed at any football ground until 3 April by the Italian government,” the petitioner said.

    The media reports also mentioned that the petitioner had sent a representation to authorities not to allow the BCCI to conduct IPL T20 cricket matches.