ITV

Tag: Delhi HC

  • PepsiCo, MSM attempting out of court settlement over ‘Youngistaan’

    PepsiCo, MSM attempting out of court settlement over ‘Youngistaan’

    MUMBAI: It was in 2008 that PepsiCo India came up with a new campaign around the theme ‘Youngistaan’, the land of youngsters.

     

    The campaign featuring cricketers and film stars was aimed at bringing alive the connect between the cola brand and the youth.

     

    PepsiCo India had then got ‘Youngistaan’ registered as its trademark. The trademark is now a matter of dispute between PepsiCo India and MSM Motion Pictures.

     

    The dispute is over the title of a film co-produced by MSM Motion Pictures and Vashu Bhagnani-owned Pooja Pictures.

     

    Even after having received a notice in January from PepsiCo India against the use of Youngistan as the title of their film, the co-producers went ahead and announced the film with the same name.

     

    PepsiCo alleged that its registered trademark Youngistaan has been violated by the co-producers of the film by choosing to go ahead with Youngistan as the film’s title.

     

    Singh&Singh, a law firm representing PepsiCo, had last month sent a legal notice to the co-producers of the film against the use of Youngistaan as the title of their film.

     

    Notwithstanding the objections raised by PepsiCo, MSM Motion Pictures and Pooja Pictures, on 6 February, announced the launch of their upcoming film ‘Youngistaan’ featuring Jackky Bhagnani, Neha Sharma, Boman Irani and late Farooq Sheikh.

     

    Pepsi then took the matter to the Delhi High Court on 12 February. “Since MSM didn’t comply with the legal notice, we had to take a step and file a case against them for violation of (PepsiCo) trademark,” says a source from the law firm.

     

    Pepsi has pleaded for an order from the high court “restraining them (the co-producers of the film) from launching their movie under the impugned title ‘Youngistaan’ which is nothing but a blatant imitation of the plaintiff’s (Pepsi) registered trademark”.

     

    The next hearing in the matter is scheduled on Monday, 24 February in the court of Justice A K Pathak.

     

    While PepsiCo India continues to pursue the legal course, the two parties have not completely given up hope of an amicable settlement.

     

    PepsiCo India and MSM Motion Pictures are in talks to try an out of court settlement, as per industry sources.

     

    Officials of MSM Motion Pictures were unavailable for a comment.

     

    The dispute is interesting as a corporate is attempting to prevent one of its promotional trademarks from being used as the title of a film.

  • Kantar says TAM to apply for registration within time given by Delhi HC

    Kantar says TAM to apply for registration within time given by Delhi HC

    MUMBAI: We had last reported that Kantar Market Research Services, one of the shareholders of India’s only TV ratings agency TAM, got a stay from the Delhi High Court on the provision regarding cross-holding of shareholders in the regulations for television ratings agencies.

      

    The court had asked Kantar to ensure TAM complies with the rest of the provisions in the regulations and granted it time to apply with the ministry of information and broadcasting for registration as a television ratings agency.

     

    TAM was allowed to apply for registration in two weeks from the date (15 February, 2014) the regulations came into effect.

     

    Kantar is confident that there will be no delays from TAM’s side in submitting its registration application to the MIB.

     

    Speaking on behalf of TAM, Kantar CEO Eric Salama says, “We are seeking to comply with all the terms of the regulation, cross ownership aside, in the specified period. We will be applying to the Ministry and will not be asking for any further extension.”

     

    The court has also allowed TAM to continue publishing its television ratings till it decides on Kantar’s petition. The court will further hear the case on 6 March. And Salama hopes wiser counsel will prevail on the issue of cross-holdings in TAM. Says he: “As long as the system is transparent so that the same data is released at the same time to all users and there is suitable governance, the shareholding structure makes no difference to the outcome and shouldn’t be an issue.”

     

    If the court finally rules against Kantar and TAM has to stop churning out its ratings, advertisers will be without any viewership data till the industry-backed Broadcast Audience Research Council (BARC) gets its act together. BARC recently announced that it will present a blueprint of how its viewership ratings monitoring system will work by end-March 2014. It hopes to roll out data to clients by 1 October 2014.

     

    Asked what if the HC rules against Kantar’s appeal and it has to restructure TAM’s shareholding to comply with the regulation,  an optimistic Salama says, “I obviously hope that the court will rule against the cross-ownership clause and enable us to progress without a blackout period.”
     

    For those who came in late, the government’s regulations require television ratings agencies to comply with the following clauses:

     

    1.1 The applicant seeking registration for providing television rating services shall be a company registered in India under the Companies Act, 1956.  

     

    1.2 The company shall make full disclosure, at the time of application, of Shareholders Agreements, Loan Agreements and such other Agreements that are finalized or are proposed to be entered into. Any subsequent change in these, having a bearing on the foregoing Agreements, would be disclosed to the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, within 15 days.

     

    1.3 The company shall have, in its Memorandum of Association (MoA), specified rating services or market research, as one of its main objectives.

     

    1.4 The company’s MoA shall not include any activity like consultancy or any such advisory role, which would lead to a potential conflict of interest with its main objective of rating.

     

    1.5 Any member of the Board of Directors of the television ratings company shall not be in the business of broadcasting/ advertising/advertising agency.

     

    1.6 The Company shall have a minimum net worth of Rs 20 crores. The net worth shall be calculated as per the prescribed proforma and shall be certified by the Statutory Auditor of the company.

     

    1.7 The company shall comply with the following cross holdings requirements.

     

     (a) No single company/legal entity, either directly or through its associates or inter-connected undertakings, shall have substantial equity holding in more than one ratings agency operating in the same area.

     

    (b) The cross-holdings restriction will also be applicable in respect of individual promoters besides being applicable to legal entities.

  • Delhi HC restrains Sony TV from telecasting crime show on Chautala

    Delhi HC restrains Sony TV from telecasting crime show on Chautala

    NEW DELHI: A crime show based on the teachers‘ recruitment scam involving former Haryana chief minister Om Prakash Chautala and 54 others will not be telecast pending direction of the Delhi High Court.

    The show was to have been telecast on Sony TV‘s Crime Patrol tonight.

    Justice M L. Mehta‘s interim direction came on a plea of Chautala, his then officer on special duty Vidya Dhar and political advisor Sher Singh Badshami.

    Advocate Rajiv Nayyar, appearing for Chautala, asked the court to direct the channel to postpone the telecast till the pending petition seeking suspension of their sentence is decided by another bench, as the programme could adversely impact the appeal against the trial court verdict.

    He said that Chautala has also sought suspension of his 10 year imprisonment and till it is decided, the programme‘s telecast should be deferred.

    The trial court last month sentenced Chautala, his son Ajay Chautala and eight others to 10 years in jail while one convict was sentenced to five years and 45 others were handed out four-year jail terms after convicting them of illegally recruiting 3,206 junior basic trained teachers in Haryana in 2000.

  • Delhi HC allows Mehengai song in its original form

    Delhi HC allows Mehengai song in its original form

    NEW DELHI: Prakash Jha‘s film Chakravyuh will release this Friday with the song on ‘Mehengai‘ (inflation) in its original form following the reversal of a single judge order by a division bench of the Delhi High Court.
    The single judge Kailash Gambhir had on 15 October restrained the filmmaker and others from playing the song as he felt the use of the word Bata in the song violated the shoe brand‘s credibility and trademark.
    The film Chakravyuh is already showing its song Mehngaai on YouTube and other media. The Bata Company had, when asking the court to stay its screening, broadcast and advertising, demanded removal of its brand name from the song or withdrawal of the entire song from the film.
    A bench comprising Justices Pradeep Nandrajog and Manmohan Singh in an interim order said, “there is nothing defamatory in the word ‘Bata‘ and (its use in the song) is only referential, more symbolic and does not refer to particular activity of a person.”
    The court held that issues related to freedom of expression are quite complex and posted the matter for November for further hearing.
    After winning a legal battle in Kolkata against the use of the word Birla, this is Jha‘s second win against the shoe major.
    The Birla family has also demanded removal of the word Birla from the song. Appearing on behalf of Birla, the law firm Khaitan & Co had on 3 October sent a legal notice to the film director saying “The Birlas are deeply hurt, and have strong reservations against the use of their name in such a derogatory manner in the song.”
    The song written by T M Turaz also names the Ambanis and the Tatas. The film‘s promo, however, carries a disclaimer saying “the names used in the song are symbolic and do not intend to harm or disrespect any brand or individual”, which is in conformity with the directions of the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC), the petitioner had contended.

  • Delhi HC warns news channels on irresponsible stings

    NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court warned the news channels in being cautious and circumspect on airing sting operations, and suggested that the I&B Ministry should set up a committee to ferret stings before they are aired.

    The TV news channel Live India which had aired a fake sting operation on a woman school teacher, has been let off after warning and the court clearly admonished the TV news industry for blindly chasing TRPs (television rating point).

    Live India had shown a woman teacher, Uma Khurana, as being involved in a sex racket. This had come for widespread criticism after it transpired that the sting was a fake, and the court said this was an entrapment.

    The Bench comprising Chief Justice M K Sharma and Justice Sanjeev Khanna said that damage to the reputation of anyone for the interest of channels chasing TRPs must be avoided in the future, without of course going so far as to ban stings.

    The court, while suggesting guidelines, said that every reporter and news channel doing a sting operation should give an undertaking regarding its veracity.

    The court said the editor-in-chief and senior journalists of a TV channel must be more “mature” and “circumspect” while airing sting operations, which must not damage anyone’s reputation.

    “No doubt the media is well within its domain in resorting to investigative journalism to bring us face to face with the ugly underbelly of society,” the Bench said.

    “There is no doubt and there is no second opinion that truth is required to be shown to the public in their interest and the same can be shown whether in the nature of sting operation or otherwise, but we feel that entrapment of any person should not be resorted to and should not be permitted,” the Court said.

    The channel had shown the ‘sting’ on 30 August, which had led to rioting in Central Delhi’s crowded Chandni Chowk area and Khurana had been beaten up by an irate mob. But two days later, Hindustan Times exposed the channel; one reporter and an aspiring lady reporter had faked the ‘sting’.

    The High Court had then taken up the matter suo moto and on Friday, dismissed the case after admonishing the channel, and warning the TV news industry in general.

    Later, Delhi Police had after investigation said that Khurana had not been involved in any form of flesh trade or trafficking in women.

  • CAS: Government to revert to Delhi HC next week

    CAS: Government to revert to Delhi HC next week

    NEW DELHI: The government is likely to revert to the Delhi High Court with a status report on CAS’ rollout early next week even as the Indian Broadcasting Foundation (IBF) has raised several queries on addressability’s efficacy.

    “A senior official of the information and broadcasting ministry admitted that it has to go back to the court with a feedback on CAS, but said it’s timing is still not clear.

    “One month for us would be calculated from the day we received a certified copy of the court order. As on 10 March, a verbal order was passed,” the official said.
    Still, the official also added that the court would have to be apprised of
    the progress on CAS front and “it would be done.” With diverse signals emanating from the industry stakeholders, the government is slightly confused, the official said.

    However, the deluge of facts and figures relating to CAS and various time lines proposed by stakeholders also gives the government some breathing space.

    On 10 March, the Delhi High Court directed the government to implement CAS in Kolkata, Delhi and Mumbai within a month’s time. The judgment came on a petition filed by some MSOs, including INCablenet and Hathway.

    While a large section of the cable fraternity has been pushing for quick
    implementation of CAS, a section of broadcasters and consumer organisations want a certain comfort level before CAS is rolled out.

    IBF AGAINST PRICE CONTROL UNDER CAS

    Meanwhile, the IBF in a submission to the government has said that there should not be any price control in a CAS-enabled regime and the issue of piracy should be addressed as a priority.

    “Under the Trai (sector regulator) recommendations to government for CAS implementation, presented on 1 October, 2004, it was recommended that there should be no price control in addressable markets. In view of this, we believe that for CAS notified areas, there should be no price fixation,” the IBF letter states setting the cat amongst the pigeons (read the cable operators).

    The letter, a copy of which is available with Indiantelevision.com, drops broad hints that pay broadcasters would not give a la carte price for consumers — something that has been in demand for over a year now during confabulations on CAS.

    “Broadcasters are whole sellers to cable operators as the consumer price for cable TV is fixed by the operators,” IBF has said, adding all pending litigations and outstanding dues involving the cable industry must be resolved before CAS is rolled out.

    Hinting that the claims of MSOs and cable ops on availability of set-top boxes might be exaggerated, the IBF goes on to state that effective steps should be taken to ensure that in the notified areas, adequate number of boxes is available with MSOs and last mile operators to cater to the demand.

    “There should be no instance that consumers want to install STBs and
    MSOs/LCOs are unable to provide them. MSOs/LCOs would also need to ensure that there is proper coordination between them and their LCOs. The MSOs/LCOs should provide a detailed STB implementation plan,” the IBF letter says.

    The broadcasters have also urged the government to ban carriage fee, which is demanded by cable operators and also given by most major broadcasters whether free to air or pay.

    “The IBF members are of the view that the government should make sure that cable operators not demand carriage fee from the broadcasters… in view of the fact that they collect subscription revenue from the subscribers,” the letter states.

    Another point raised by the IBF is that since CAS is being mandated by the government, unlike in other countries where market forces bring about its rollout, other addressable systems like DTH, IPTV and broadband should also be similarly mandated to create “a level playing field” for those platforms.

  • CAS rollout: Delhi HC ‘no’ to government plea for more time

    CAS rollout: Delhi HC ‘no’ to government plea for more time

    NEW DELHI: The Indian government yet again pleaded for more time to roll out CAS — six months to be exact — but a Delhi court has refused to accede to the request, asking for a final stand on the issue by the next date of hearing.

    According to information available with Indiantelevision.com, even the broadcast regulator pleaded for two to three months time to sort out CAS-related issues like pricing of TV channels.

    The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (Trai) submitted to the Delhi High Court today that it has initiated a dialogue with the industry stakeholders on issues related to CAS, which would take a few months time to complete and some consensus arrived at.

    However, the court was critical of such pleas and fixed the next date of hearing for 19 July.

    On the arguments forwarded by the government for more time, the court said the maximum that could be given is 90 days as authorities have already consumed considerable time in carrying out an earlier order of the court.

    On 10 March, the Delhi HC had directed the information and broadcasting ministry to roll out CAS in Kolkata, Delhi and Mumbai within a month’s time.

    The court observed that if the government is unable to sort out CAS matters, then it could also explore the possibility of going ahead with the rollout based on the Chennai model.

    Chennai is the only city in India where CAS has been rolled out and running smoothly since 2003.

    A clutch of MSOs, including Hathway and INCablenet, had filed a case against the government on CAS in the Delhi High Court late 2004, alleging that keeping addressability in abeyance had resulted in financial losses to the petitioners.

    In the representation made before the court today, the petitioners alluded to the possibility of the government having plans to do away with mandated CAS completely. In this regard they made references to the relevant sections from the draft Broadcast Bill 2006, which is currently being circulated amongst government organisations for further feedback.

    When the government counsel expressed his ignorance of a draft Broadcast Bill, leave alone plans of junking CAS by making it voluntary, the counsel for the petitioners furnished a section of the draft Bill in the court.

  • Delhi HC orders Government to implement CAS within four weeks

    Delhi HC orders Government to implement CAS within four weeks

    NEW DELHI / MUMBAI: In a decision that could have major ramifications for the Indian television industry, the Delhi High Court has ordered the government to enforce the rollout of addressability in cable pay television (conditional access system or CAS) in India within four weeks.

    Delivering its verdict on a writ petition filed by a bunch of MSOs, after reserving the judgement for several months, the court also directed the government to pay damages worth Rs 100,000 to the petitioners. The court has ordered the government to make haste on the report of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (Trai), which has been pending before it since October 2004.

    The court has ordered the government to revoke its notification of 27 February 2004 that scrapped the rollout of CAS in the three metros of Mumbai, Delhi and Kolkata in phases (it eventually got implemented only in Chennai). This in effect will revive the notification of 10 July 2003 which provided for partial CAS in these three metros.

    The Delhi HC also said that the government cannot denotify an earlier notification on CAS and keep the issue in limbo. The government has the right to appeal against the order in Delhi HC and Supreme Court.
    No immediate reaction, however, was available from the government as information and broadcasting ministry officials said that the court verdict is being “studied in its entirety.”

    The court gave the order in response to a writ petition filed by MSOs in response to the government’s decision to withdraw CAS. The petitioners include Hathway, INCablenet and RPG’s cable company that was bought over by Siti Cable last year.

    Reacting to the court direction on CAS, MSO Alliance president Ashok Mansukhani said that their viewpoint stands vindicated. “The verdict is a clear direction to the government to start the process of CAS, which will help bring transparency in the market and choice to consumers.”

    Added Hathway Cable & Datacom CEO K Jayaraman: “We will cooperate wholeheartedly with the government to roll out CAS.”

    But with Tata Sky preparing to launch in June, is the timing too close for cable to have an advantage over direct-to-home (DTH)? “The deployment of digital cable is going to be in a phased manner as directed by the court in line with the last notification. It will evolve first in the notified areas of the metros specified, like south Mumbai and Delhi. Besides, cable networks who can offer value additions to subscribers like data and telephony will stand to gain. Also, analogue cable will be available,” said Siticable CEO Jagjit Kohli.

    Will supply of boxes at such a short notice be a matter of concern? Cable Operators’ Federation of India head Roop Sharma brushes aside such criticisms saying, “The cable industry has enough stock of set-top boxes.”

    Welcoming the judgement, Sharma further said, “This would break the monopoly of broadcasters and bring respite to consumers also.”

    However, National Cable and Telecom Association president and owner of Delhi’s Home Cable Network Vikki Chowdhry was more cautious in his reaction, saying the full text of the court order has to be seen before jumping to any conclusion.

    According to Chowdhry, if the court order pertains to CAS rollout in only south zones of some cities, as once had been discussed earlier, then the impact would be neutralised and “create legal and operational problems.”

    Chowdhry added that if the south zone formula was implemented by the government, then his company would appeal against it to higher authorities, including the Supreme Court.

    The court dismissed the government’s contention that implementation of CAS was unjustifiable. The government has been ordered to compensate the MSOs for losses incurred due to the non implementation of CAS to the tune of Rs 100,000.

    In January, information and broadcasting secretary SK Arora appeared before the court and sought three months time to implement CAS in the country. The request was rejected by Justice Vikramjit Sen. Petitioner Hathway Cable Datacom’s counsel Indu Malhotra submitted that the government was only buying time to delay the implementation of CAS.

    Additional solicitor general PP Malhotra, who appeared for the government, had submitted that the issue of CAS had been decided by another division bench of the High Court in December 2003.

    CAS rollout plan as originally envisaged in 2003:

    * Initial 15-day period will be used primarily for creating consumer awareness about CAS, procurement of set-top boxes by cable operators and MSOs, and for broadcasters of pay channels to conduct promotional campaigns.

    * Each of the three notified metro cities (Delhi, Mumbai, and Kolkata) would be divided into four zones for the purpose of staggered rollout of the addressable system of transmission of pay channels.

    * After the initial 15-day period, within a one-month time frame, in Zone A in each metro, pay channels can be watched only with the use of STBs. Pay channel consumers in this zone will be charged, in addition to the price of the basic tier plus taxes, only for the individual channels of their choice as per the pre-announced rates set for them.

    Consumers of free-to-air (FTA) channels, who will not need an STB, will be charged only the basic FTA channel package charge plus taxes. In zones B, C, and D, cable operators will charged only for the basic tier plus taxes for all channels, including all available pay channels.

    * From Day 1 of the second month onwards, CAS will take effect in Zone B in each metro, while in zones C and D subscribers will pay only for the basic tier plus taxes for all channels.

    * And so it follows in Zone C from Day 1 of the third month onwards and Zone D from Day 1 of the fourth month onwards.