Tag: Union of India

  • Self-certification of ads: A deeper legal perspective

    Self-certification of ads: A deeper legal perspective

    Mumbai: The Indian advertising industry, like any other market of the world, plays a significant role in shaping consumer sentiment towards products and services available in the market. Correspondingly, it is essential to have adequate regulation and supervision of the sector for ensuring that advertisements do not result in manipulation of consumer behaviour based on fallacious claims. The supreme court recently in Indian Medical Association vs Union of India addressed concerns surrounding misleading advertisements in the case where Indian Medical Association (IMA) filed a petition accusing Patanjali Ayurveda of issuing misleading advertisements and passing critical remarks against allopathy. The court highlighted the responsibility of both advertisers and endorsers in instances of misleading advertisements.

    Advertisements, misleading advertisements, related terms and concerns

    Advertisements: An advertisement, under Advertising Standards Council of India (“ASCI”) code for self-regulation of advertising content in India, is defined as a paid-for communication, addressed to the public or a section of it, the purpose of which is to promote, directly or indirectly, the sale or use of goods and services to whom it is addressed. Any communication which in the normal course may or may not be recognised as advertisement by the general public, but is paid for, or owned or authorised by the advertiser or their advertising agency would be included in the definition.

    The Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (“CPA”) defines an advertisement as any audio or visual publicity, representation, endorsement or pronouncement made by means of light, sound, smoke, gas, print, electronic media, internet or website and includes any notice, circular, label, wrapper, invoice or such other documents.

    According to the Central Consumer Protection Authority’s  (“CCPA”) Notification dated June 2022:

    a. “advertiser” means a person who designs, produces and publishes advertisements either by his own effort or by entrusting it to others in order to promote the sale of his goods, products or services and includes a manufacturer and service provider of such goods, products or services.

    b. “advertising agency” means a person or an establishment providing services in designing and production of advertisements or other related services for a commission or fee;

    Misleading advertisements: A ‘misleading advertisement’ is an advertisement that contains false, inaccurate and deceptive claims and representations about the product/service being represented, in a manner that is likely to accord to a potential buyer/consumer incorrect understanding about the product/service, thereby wrongfully influencing their purchase and usage decisions. Section 2(28) of the CPA defines misleading advertisement as any product or service which—

    (i) falsely describes such product or service; or

    (ii) gives a false guarantee to, or is likely to mislead the consumers as to the nature, substance, quantity or quality of such product or service; or

    (iii) conveys an express or implied representation which, if made by the manufacturer or seller or service provider thereof, would constitute an unfair trade practice; or

    (iv) deliberately conceals important information

    Celebrities and endorsers: ASCI defines a celebrity as anyone who (a) gets compensated Rs 40 lakh or equivalent value annually for appearing in advertisements or campaigns on any medium and any format; or (b) has a social media followership of 500,000 or more on any single social media handle. Celebrities or influencers (an individual or a group or an institution) who make endorsement of any goods, product or service can be  defined as endorsers. An endorser has the power to affect/influence their audiences’ purchasing decisions or opinions about a product, service, brand or experience, because of their authority, knowledge, position, or relationship with their audience, and also accord credibility and reliability to the brand in view of their association therewith.

    Under the current legal framework, the penalties for taking part in creation and publication of misleading advertisements are:

    1.  A first offence under the Drug and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act (DOMA), 1954 could lead to imprisonment for six months and/or a fine. For subsequent offences, the punishment may extend to one year.

    2.  The CPA imposes stricter consequences, with a potential imprisonment term of upto two years and a fine of around Rs 10 lakh for violations. Repeat offences escalate to a five-year imprisonment term and a fine of approximately Rs 50 lakh.

    In view of the alarming rise in misleading advertisements in the market, the supreme court as well as various governmental and private bodies have issued regulations and guidelines directed towards endorsers/influencers, advertisers and advertisement agencies in relation to publication to advertisements. A glimpse of such directions, guidelines and regulations have been provided below.

    A.  Guidelines issued by courts for endorsers concerning misleading advertisements:

    The bench of Justices Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah in the aforementioned Patanjali case stated that “advertisers/advertising agencies and endorsers are equally responsible for issuing false and misleading advertisements. Such endorsements that are routinely made by public figures, influencers, celebrities etc. go a long way in promoting a product. It is imperative for them to act with a sense of responsibility when endorsing any product and take responsibility for the same …”.

    The bench further stated that persons who endorse a product should have adequate information or experience with such specific product to be endorsed, and it must be ensured that it must not be deceptive. Celebrities and social media influencers will be equally liable for misleading advertisements, if they endorse any deceptive product or service.

    Concerning misleading advertisements, the court issued the following directions:

    1  Broadcasters or print media have to file a self-declaration form before carrying any advertisements, assuring that the advertisement to be carried on its platform complies with Cable Network Rules, Advertising Code etc.

    2  Ministries were directed to set up a specific procedure which will encourage the consumer to lodge a complaint and for the said complaint to be taken to a logical conclusion instead of simply being endorsed or marked.

    3  Persons who endorse a product should have adequate information or experience with specific product to be endorsed, and it must be ensured that it is must not be deceptive.

    4  Celebrities and social media influencers will be equally liable for misleading advertisements, if they endorse any deceptive product or service.

    5  The ministry of consumer affairs, was ordered to file a fresh affidavit on action taken by CCPA on false or misleading advertisements,

    B.  Guidelines under various statutes and governmental and private bodies

    1.  ASCI self-regulation guidelines for endorsers and advertisers

    ASCI, established in 1985, is committed to the cause of self-regulation in advertising, ensuring  protection of the interests of consumers. It seeks to ensure that advertisements conform to its code for self-regulation, which requires these to be legal, decent, honest and truthful, and not hazardous or harmful, while observing fairness in competition. Some core tenets of ASCI guidelines with reference to celebrities in advertising are–

    1    Advertisements with celebrities should not violate any guideline of the ASCI code.

    2    It is an obligation of the advertiser to make a celebrity aware of the code.

    3    Representations by a celebrity must be genuine and must be based on adequate information or experience.

    4    Due diligence necessary by the celebrity to ensure that representations made in the advertisements are objectively true and are not misleading or deceptive.

    5    Celebrities should not participate in any advertisement of products that are prohibited for advertising under the law. Examples include products under the Drugs and Cosmetic Act 1940.

    6    A celebrity should not endorse a product for which a health warning is required to be issued.

    7    A celebrity may seek ‘advertising advice’ from ASCI on potential violations by an ad.

    In a bid to address misleading advertisements and safeguard consumers from unfair trade practices, especially arising out of celebrity endorsements, ASCI has laid out certain guidelines for celebrities/ influencers listing out their responsibilities while involving themselves in such marketing campaigns.

    The guidelines (dated July 13th, 2023) lay down the following –

    1  Celebrities endorsing products must adhere to the ASCI codes. Testimonials and endorsements should genuinely reflect the individual’s current opinion, grounded in sufficient knowledge or experience with the advertised product or service.

    2  It’s upon the advertisers and agencies to ensure that celebrities are well-informed about these codes. Celebrities must rigorously verify the accuracy of claims and comparisons in advertisements they endorse, ensuring they’re objectively substantiated and not misleading.

    3  They must abstain from endorsing products prohibited under the Drugs & Magic Remedies Act or requiring health warnings, as mandated by the Drugs & Cosmetics Act.

    4  Celebrities have the option to seek endorser due diligence (EDD) from ASCI to be compliant with the ASCI code and other relevant legal statutes, to protect themselves from any potential violations or litigations down the line.

    However, ASCI being a private self-regulating body, lacks the authority to compel businesses to adhere to the ASCI guidelines in a meaningful manner.

    2.  Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA)’s guidelines on false or misleading advertisements

    CCPA, unlike ASCI does have that power to compel businesses to adhere to their guidelines and their guidelines for misleading advertisements and endorsements, 2022 (“guidelines”), state the following-

    1  These guidelines obligated, inter alia, businesses to comply with stringent regulations governing misleading advertisements.

    2  The guidelines require that the endorsement in an ad must reflect the genuine and reasonably current opinion of the endorser, that includes celebrity or influencer, and must be based on adequate information about, or experience with, the identified goods or service and should not be deceptive.

    3  Adherence to the guidelines is essential for celebrities and influencers to maintain transparency and authenticity with their audience. Not only is this supposed to hold the endorsers responsible but also helps the consumers make informed decisions.

    The guidelines state that individuals or groups who have access to an audience and the power to affect their audiences’ purchasing decisions or opinions about a product, service, brand, or experience, because of the influencer’s or celebrity’s authority, knowledge, position, or relationship with their audience must disclose to the audience if the endorsement is a result of benefit or incentive from the advertiser. That is, if the endorser (including celebrities and influencers) is endorsing a product for which they have received some monetary/non-monetary compensation or any other form of sponsorship from the advertiser, the endorsement must clearly and prominently disclose the same. Following are the specific requirements and mandates to be followed by endorsers and influencers:

    i With respect to different formats used for endorsement, the guidelines stipulate the following rules for disclosure:

    1. For images: disclosures should be superimposed over the image enough for viewers to notice. 
    2. For videos: disclosures should be placed in the video and be made in both audio and video format.
    3. For live streams: disclosures should be displayed continuously and prominently during the entire stream.

    ii The disclosure must be made in simple and clear language.

    The disclosure must be made in simple and clear language. Terms such as “advertisement”, “sponsored”, “collaboration” or “paid promotion” can be used. Further, the disclosure should be made in the same language as the endorsement. Also, disclosures should not be mixed with a group of hashtags or links. The Guidelines specify that individuals must not endorse any product or service that they have not personally used or experienced or in which due diligence has not been done by them.

    iii Endorsers are liable for legal action if they do not disclose endorsement.

    The endorsers will be liable for legal consequences if they fail to disclose any material connection and/or upon non-compliance with the CPA and the associated rules. A material connection is any connection between an advertiser and endorser that may affect the weight or credibility of the representation made by the endorser. Material connection could include but is not limited to benefits and incentives, such as monetary or other compensation, free products with or without any conditions attached including those received unsolicited, discounts, gifts, contest and sweepstakes entries, trips or hotel stays, media barters, coverage, awards or any family or employment relationship, etc. According to Section 21 of the Act–

    (2) Notwithstanding the order passed under sub-section (1), if the Central Authority is of the opinion that it is necessary to impose a penalty in respect of such false or misleading advertisement, by a manufacturer or an endorser, it may, by order, impose on manufacturer or endorser a penalty which may extend to ten lakh rupees: Provided that the Central Authority may, for every subsequent contravention by a manufacturer or endorser, impose a penalty, which may extend to fifty lakh rupees.

    (3) Notwithstanding any order under sub-sections (1) and (2), where the Central Authority deems it necessary, it may, by order, prohibit the endorser of a false or misleading advertisement from making endorsement of any product or service for a period which may extend to one year: Provided that the Central Authority may, for every subsequent contravention, prohibit such endorser from making endorsement in respect of any product or service for a period which may extend to three years.

    3. The ministry of consumer affairs’, guidelines – endorsements know-hows!’ for celebrities, influencers and virtual influencers on social media platforms)

    The ministry of consumer affairs on 20 Jan, 2023, issued its guidelines (titled endorsements know-hows!’ for celebrities, influencers and virtual influencers on social media platforms) specifically pertaining to celebrity/ influencer endorsements.

    1  It emphasizes on the requirement of providing clear disclosures of any material connection with advertisers and straightforward language in endorsements; whereby, ‘material connection’ is deemed to be any connection between an advertiser and endorser that may affect the weight or credibility of the representation made by the endorser; and could include without being limited to benefits and incentives, such as monetary or other compensation, free products with or without any conditions attached including those received unsolicited, discounts, gifts, contest and sweepstakes entries, trips or hotel stays, media barters, coverage, awards or any family or employment relationship, etc.

    2  Terms like “advertisement” or “sponsored” should denote paid promotions. Endorsers must avoid promoting products they haven’t personally used.

    3  Aligned with the CPA, the guidelines prohibit misleading advertisements and outlines responsibilities for manufacturers, service providers, advertisers, and agencies.

    4  It reinforces guidelines for valid advertisements and addresses celebrity and endorser responsibilities.

    4.  The ministry of information & broadcasting’s advisory to endorsers on restriction on promoting, advertising, endorsing, even through surrogate marketing, offshore betting and gambling

    The ministry of information and broadcasting, on 21 March, 2024, issued an advisory directed towards endorsers and online influencers, restricting them from promoting, advertising, endorsing, even though surrogate marketing, offshore betting and gambling to the consumers, especially the youth. It states that –

    1  Emphasizing the significant financial and socio-economic implications, particularly on youth, the advisory also warns online advertisement intermediaries against targeting Indian audiences with such content.

    2  Social media platforms are urged to sensitize users and abstain from hosting such promotions.

    3  Non-compliance may result in actions under the CPA, including removal of the impugned post or account as well as penal measures.

    4  While Section 79 of the IT Act, 2000 exempts intermediaries from liability, failure to promptly remove unlawful content upon notification can restrict application of this exemption.

    5  The directive aligns with the CCPA’s previous guidelines, expressing concerns over endorsements of betting/gambling platforms by celebrities and influencers, subjecting such advertisements to stringent scrutiny.

    Not only in recent times, but celebrities have been under the scanner even in the past for being part of misleading advertisements. For instance, in 2015, a resident of Delhi filed a complaint in the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum of Central Delhi about the ‘Fair and Handsome Cream’, (world’s number one Fairness Cream for Men) being manufactured by Emami.  

    The complainant contended that he had used the product as per directions for use mentioned on the labelling and packaging of the product, but it had failed to show any results as claimed. He also argued that Emami had been using Shahrukh Khan as its brand ambassador for the promotion of the product and made false claims and promises that the product provides fairness in just three weeks.  The court ruled that the advertisements by Shahrukh Khan were misleading and directed Emami to pay an amount of Rs. 15 lakhs as punitive damages to the consumer welfare fund. It also directed the company to pay the complainant a sum of Rs.10,000 and withdrawal of the advertisement.

    Apart from this, there have also been many media reports of cases filed against celebrities like Amitabh Bachchan, Madhuri Dixit, and Preity Zinta for promoting Nestle’s Maggi Noodles when the product was banned when found to contain taste enhancer MSG and the chemical lead beyond permissible limits, which are harmful to humans.

    A controversy regarding a pan masala advertisement occurred in 2016 when the former James Bond actor, Pierce Brosnan, appeared in an advertisement for Pan Bahar, a pan masala brand popular in India. Pan masala is a mixture of specific kinds of nuts, seeds, and spices, often chewed for its stimulating effects, but it has been associated with health risks, including oral cancer. Pierce Brosnan was severely criticized for endorsing a product that adversely affected health. Brosnan later clarified that he was misled about the nature of the product, believing it to be a breath freshener or tooth whitener rather than a tobacco product. He also stated that his contract specified that he was promoting a “breath freshener/tooth whitener,” and he felt betrayed by the company’s use of his image to promote a pan masala product. The celebrities and media agencies were requested not be a part of surrogate advertisements of tobacco in the name of pan masala, tea, elaichi or other goods as these are prohibited under section 5 of the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products Act (COTPA), 2003 (“COPTA”). COPTA bans all kinds of direct and indirect advertisements of tobacco products. The controversy sparked discussions about celebrity endorsements and ethical considerations regarding the endorsement of Indian products that could be harmful to health, irrespective of the nationality of the endorser.

    5  Ministry of information & broadcasting (MIB) mandate to advertisers/advertising agencies to furnish a ‘self-declaration certificate’  before airing or publishing any advertisement

    The Supreme Court, in furtherance to abovementioned guidelines for the endorsers, has issued a directive in its order dated 7 May 2024 whereby all advertisers and advertising agencies are mandated to furnish a ‘self-declaration certificate’ before airing or publishing any advertisement. The MIB has published a press release announcing a new feature facilitating self-declaration by advertisers and advertising agencies from print, broadcast as well as digital media starting 18 June  2024 (“Press Release”).

    This certificate, signed by an authorized representative of the advertiser or advertising agency, must be submitted through designated portals, as stated by MIB in an official recent press release. The supreme court took note of the absence of a “robust mechanism” to oversee whether advertisers are fulfilling the obligations stipulated under the guidelines released by the CCPA. The supreme court further clarified that these directions were to be treated as the law declared under Article 141 of the Constitution of India. The supreme court in Sahara India Real Estate Corp Ltd. v. SEBI stated that the Constitution of India contemplates, that law declared by it, is binding on all courts within the territory of India. It also mandates, that an order made by the supreme court, is enforceable throughout the territory of India.

    Such self-declaration certificate shall be submitted through a designated portal activated on 4 June, 2024. The MIB  has introduced a new feature on the Broadcast Seva Portal of the MIB for TV and Radio Advertisements and on Press Council of India’s portal for print and digital/internet advertisements. The self-declaration certificate is mandatory for all advertisers/advertising agencies for all advertisements going live 18 June 2024 onwards, to be provided before broadcasting/publishing of such advertisement. For sake of clarity, the directive by Supreme Court and the following press release is not retrospective in nature and shall not be applicable on the advertisements that are already live. The salient aspects and observations in relation to the mechanism of self-declaration are provided hereinbelow:

    i Roadmap to Self-Declaration Certificate

    a. An authorized representative of the advertiser/advertising agency must sign and submit the self-declaration certificate, ensuring accountability and authenticity of the certificate.

    b. The authorized representative is required to provide comprehensive information about the advertised product or service, including advertisement title, description, script, and proposed date of first broadcast/publishing.

    c. The said submission of the certificate necessitates a letter of authorization, full advertisement script, video/audio file, and, if available and applicable, GST details and a CBFC certificate. The letter of authorization shall mandatorily be on the company letterhead of the advertiser/advertising agency and should be signed by the head of the company along with company seal.

    d. The certification includes affirmation of compliance with relevant regulatory guidelines, including those in Rule 7 of the Cable Television Networks Rules, 1994, and the Norms of Journalistic Conduct of Press Council of India and aims to ensure that advertisements do not contain any misleading claims.

    e. The Advertisers are required to ensure accuracy and completeness of the details, before uploading the self-declaration certificate.

    f. The successful submission of the details generates an acknowledgment receipt.

    g. Advertiser shall be required to provide proof of uploading the self-declaration certificate to the relevant broadcaster, printer, publisher, or electronic media platform for their records. As per the supreme court’s directive and the press release, no advertisement will be permitted to run on television, print media, or the internet without a valid self-declaration certificate.

    ii Elucidation required by MIB on the Self-Declaration requirement:

    Among several obscurities in the Press Release, listed below are few major concerns:

    a.  Ambiguity on terms used in the press release by MIB:

    No clarity has been given either in the order or the press release, as to who will be considered as an ‘advertiser’ or an ‘advertising agency’. However, in the absence of clarifications, reliance is being laid on the definitions given under the guidelines. Furthermore, MIB requires a self-Declaration certificate to certify that the advertisement does not contain “misleading claims”, but the press release lacks clarity on what is considered as a “misleading claim”. Reference could be drawn from the CPA, and the definition of “misleading advertisement” included therein as mentioned hereinabove. However, based on assumptions, one cannot be certain if avoiding a “misleading advertisement” would fulfil the criteria of not being considered as a “misleading claim”.

    b. Ambiguity on requirement of  separate certificates for uploading one advertisement in different languages:

    There is no clarity on this aspect, however, drawing an analogy with CBFC certification, where a different CBFC certification is required when a movie is to be released in a different language, so that the committee can examine if any translated dialogue would fall foul of its earlier criteria for certification, it would be prudent for advertisers to procure separate self-declaration certificates for different languages of the same advertisement.

    c. Ambit of the MIB press release and question over inclusion of social media

    According to the order and the press release, digital/internet-based advertisements would also require a self-declaration certificate. Digital media is defined as a means of communication that can be transmitted over the internet or digital networks and includes communication received, stored, transmitted, edited or processed by a digital media platform. Digital Media includes but not limited to (i) internet (advergames, sponsored posts, branded content, promotional blogs, paid-for links, gamification, in-game advertising, teasers, viral advertising, augmented reality, native advertising, connected devices, influencers, etc.); (ii) On-demand across platforms including near video on demand, subscription video-on-demand, near movie on-demand, free video. On-demand, transactional video on demand, advertising video on demand, video on demand, pay per view, etc.; (iii) Mobile broadcast, mobile, communications content, websites, blogs, apps, etc. / Digital TV (including digital video broadcasting handheld and terrestrial), etc.; (iv) NSTV (non-standard television); (v) DDHE (digital delivery home entertainment); (vi) DTT (digital terrestrial television)

    Although the MIB press release is not free from ambiguity on its applicability to social media such as Instagram, Facebook, X, YouTube, etc., it would be sagacious to adhere to the directives and the Press Release to avoid potential legal repercussions in future, and ensure that there is no scope for claims to arise, in instances where the content so created and exploited constitutes an advertisement as per the foregoing definitions.

    iii Exclusions and Exceptions to the Self Declaration Requirement

    It was directed by the supreme court that no advertisements would be permitted on relevant channels (assuming channels on TV and radio), print media, or the internet without a self-declaration certificate. However, the MIB carves out exceptions for classifieds, personal advertisements, statutory advertisements, public information notices, tenders, and advertisements related to public functions. However, with respect to classifieds, classified advertisements directly related to consumer products and services will come under the ambit of self-declaration certification. Additionally, the MIB press release is not retrospective in nature and shall not be applicable to ongoing advertisements currently. The new advertisements (which are to be published after 18 June, 2024 whether made prior to 18 June or made after 18 June) would require a self-declaration certificate.

    Conclusion

    Celebrity endorsements offer increased brand visibility, credibility, and influence over consumer behaviour, often affecting sales and revenue of the brand in relation to the product/service advertised. However, legal liabilities arise if endorsements are misleading, as per several guidelines, statutes and judicial precedents. The recent Patanjali judgment highlights the responsibility of both advertisers and endorsers in combating misleading advertisements. The court’s stance on the liability of celebrities and social media influencers for endorsing misleading ads underscores the importance of ethical advertising practices and prioritizes consumer welfare. The order in this case, therefore, may widen the ambit of liability for endorsers such as celebrities or influencers, and thereby, result in greater due diligence required by such endorsers, to avoid falling foul of the law. The supreme court’s directive requiring self-declaration certificates from advertisers and advertising agency before airing advertisements on all modes is a measure to combat misleading advertisements and safeguard consumer interest, however, it shall increase the burden of compliance for various companies and brands engaging in advertisements. Lack of proper monitoring mechanism for such compliance especially for a vast space like digital media, it would be interesting to see how the ministries would ensure adherence of the directives by the advertisers and advertising agencies.

    Mukherjee is a senior associate and Verma is an associate with law firm ANM Global. The views expressed in this article are entirely their own and Indiantelevision.com need not subscribe to them.

  • TDSAT gives Kamyab TV 2 weeks to submit payment schedule to govt

    TDSAT gives Kamyab TV 2 weeks to submit payment schedule to govt

    MUMBAI: The Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) has granted further two weeks’ time to Kamyab Television Pvt Ltd for submitting a time schedule for payment of the admitted dues to Union of India and Antrix TV.

    Kamyab TV had asked for an extension of time to clear the dues in the last hearing as well, which was duly granted by the tribunal. However, TDSAT in its latest order has cleared that any further time in the matter will be allotted on appropriate costs.

    The next hearing of the case is now scheduled on 9 August.

    Kamyab TV had moved TDSAT earlier this year against Union of India, as the space allotted to it on INSAT-4A was de-activated in February 2017 i.e. about two years back for dues of approximately Rs 5 crore as alleged by the Union of India. The former quoted the due amount to be Rs 3.89 crore and expressed its desire to pay the dues in installments.

    Following that, Kamyab TV also filed another application in TDSAT asking Antrix to issue a NOC so that it may be able to avail the Space Segment Service Agreement from the authorised service provider, which was denied by the latter on the grounds of non-payment of entire admitted dues.

    Kamyab Television had submitted that only Rs 1 crore could be arranged and paid immediately to Antrix for urgent issue of NOC and on when it will resume the business, the rest dues will be cleared off from its earnings.

    TDSAT had noted that Kamyab Television Pvt Ltd’s offer of an upfront payment of Rs. 1  crore for NOC is not good enough unless it provides a specific time schedule for the payment of the entire admitted dues of Rs. 3.98 crores approximately only.  

    Kamyab TV had asked for a short adjournment for instructions and, if possible, to submit a reasonable time schedule for payment of the admitted dues, which was granted. In the last hearing, Kamyab TV asked for additional time to set the schedule, which was also granted.

  • TDSAT permits Harvest TV to be renamed Tiranga TV

    TDSAT permits Harvest TV to be renamed Tiranga TV

    MUMBAI: Veecon Media and Broadcasting Pvt Ltd has been granted interim relief by Telecom Disputes Settlement Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) permitting it to use the name ‘Tiranga TV’ for its news and current affairs channel that is currently called ‘Harvest TV’

    Confirming the news, Veecon Media and Broadcasting chairman Deepak Choudhry told Indiantelevision.com, “Such relief from TDSAT could not have come at more appropriate time, when M/s Harvest Television Network Pvt Ltd, who claims to own the trade mark for ‘Harvest TV’, has filed suit against Veecon before the District Court at Thiruvananthapuram for restraining Veecon from using the name and logo, which has any resemblance with the name ‘Harvest TV’. Veecon had permission from the I&B Ministry to use the name and logo ‘Harvest TV’ and had been pursuing its case with the I&B Ministry for the change of name since September 2017. Finally, today it has succeeded is getting a change of name to ‘Tiranga TV’.”

    However, the Kapil Sibal-backed channel will not be using the three colours of the national flag in its logo, pertaining to the fact that it might be against the relevant provisions of 1950 Act and Flag Code, 2002. TDSAT said in its order, “Without expressing any final opinion on the issue noticed above, we are of the considered view that the name Tiranga itself is not covered by the Schedule of 1950 Act nor is subject matter of Flag Code.  However, this may not strictly apply to the use of the three colors which is there in the emblem of Tiranga TV.”

    It added, “We are also aware that petitioner (Veecon Media and Broadcasting Pvt Ltd) itself had opted for some other name in the interregnum but during submissions,  it has been highlighted that change of name may adversely affect the reputation, goodwill and business of the petitioner, and hence Mr Sibal has submitted that the petitioner voluntarily undertakes not to use the colors on the name and logo but simply use the words “Tiranga TV”, as submitted in its application.  In other words, he has offered that petitioner will not use the colors saffron and green in the name and logo of Tiranga TV until the issue is finally decided as per the orders of this Tribunal or otherwise in accordance with law.”

    On a relevant note, Kerala-based Christian devotional channel Harvest TV, owned by Bibi George Chacko, had earlier accused Veecon of ‘riding on the goodwill and reputation of Harvest TV’ by using its name and logo, the permission for which was granted for only two years that, which expired on 31 January 2018. Responding to the claim Veecon asserted that Chacko can get the issue decided only through an appropriate court or authority. TDSAT had given Veecon the permission to use the name Harvest TV for its channel till further orders.  

  • TDSAT gives govt 10 days to respond to Harvest TV name change petition

    TDSAT gives govt 10 days to respond to Harvest TV name change petition

    MUMBAI: Telecom Disputes Settlement Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT), on 30 January, granted 10 days’ time to the government to reply to a broadcasting petition filed by Veecon Media and Broadcasting Pvt Ltd, stating that the government has been ignoring its request to change the name and logo of Congress leader Kapil Sibal-backed Harvest TV, which it had made in September 2017.

    The government had requested time to share details of ‘some show cause notices’ that have been ‘issued to Veecon Media and Broadcasting Pvt Ltd in respect of its shareholding as well as the use of the name “Harvest TV” for its channel’ and other ‘relevant facts’.

    The tribunal has directed that till further orders, Veecon can run its news and current affairs channel under the same name, without any hindrance. The next hearing of the case has been scheduled for 5 March 2019.

    The decision comes just a day after Sibal accused the government of creating a hindrance for Harvest TV stating that the centre is trying to stifle the voice of dissent.

    Presenting its case in front of TDSAT, Veecon had also shared that a show cause notice that was served to it on 29 January supports the apprehension that there may be strong efforts to prevent it from using the name “Harvest TV” and on account it may be prevented from running its TV channel under that name. It mentioned, “The respondent (Union of India) has not taken note of petitioner’s (Veecon’s) application filed for a change of name and logo of its channel to Tiranga TV”.

    Kerala-based Christian devotional channel Harvest TV, owned by Bibi George Chacko, had earlier accused Veecon of ‘riding on the goodwill and reputation of Harvest TV’ by using its name and logo, the permission for which was granted for only two years that, which expired on 31 January 2018. Responding to the claim Veecon asserted that Chacko can get the issue decided only through an appropriate court or authority.

  • TAM shareholder Kantar takes Indian govt to court on TV ratings guidelines

    TAM shareholder Kantar takes Indian govt to court on TV ratings guidelines

    MUMBAI: So Indian TV ratings agency TAM Media will not go down without a fight. At least if one goes by the action of one of its shareholders  Kantar Market Research Services. The latter approached the Delhi High Court on 20 January, filing a writ petition against the Union of India. The writ petition states that the government’s TV ratings agency registration regulations have put the existence of its venture TAM in jeopardy, and that too after it has been operating in India for more than 15 years.

    Diya Kapur, who appeared on behalf of Kantar – during the hearing today – appealed that TAM has been in the business for a very long time and the new guidelines on cross holding restrictions will mean that it will have to go out of business.

    Kantar Market Reserach Services Pvt Ltd, a shareholder of television rating agency TAM Media, was today directed by the Delhi High Court to file in a week an affidavit detailing its shareholding in any advertising/ broadcasting companies either directly or indirectly.

     

    A bench of justice Manmohan directed Kantar and its director Thomas Puliyel, who have challenged the guidelines for television rating agencies, to also mention “the Indian companies in which the petitoner (Kantar) holds shareholding.”

    High Court judge Justice Manmohan then asked Kantar to furnish documents relating to the shareholding pattern in TAM. “This would be in the form of an affidavit detailing its shareholding in any broadcasting firm/advertising agency, either directly or indirectly.The affidavit would also mention any other Indian company in which the petitioner holds any shareholding. It would also state that none of the aforesaid companies in which Kantar have shareholding in excess of 10 per cent has done business for any entity which was involved in any ratings exercise done by TAM. If that is not so, then the details of such instances shall be given,” the single member bench said.

    The court gave Kantar Media a week to come back with the documents and adjourned the hearing for 29 January.

    But already industry sources are questioning why did Kantar Market Research Services decide to approach the courts alone? Why did TAM Media not do so? And why did only one of the two shareholders seek legal redressal? Why wasn’t AC Nielsen also a party to the case against the Union of India?  These are questions to which indiantelevision.com has no answers to right now. But keep watching this space for further developments.

    Agencies and advertisers will be too. Various stakeholders – who need ratings to know how their money is being spent – have been urging TAM Media to take legal recourse as they are quite averse to a situation of a TV ratings dark period. But with now one of its stakeholders taking steps to try and remedy the situation, they have some hope.

    The ministry of information and broadcasting is quite clear that the course has been set and there is no going back. Speaking to indiantelevison.com MIB officials have been quite clear that they don’t want to be seen favouring anybody – especially TAM. “Industry and TAM have been given a long time to do course corrections on the ratings,” said a MIB official. “More than half a decade. Why did they not do so? Why complain now? In fact, we did not want a ratings blackout; based on industry feedback earlier – they had said BARC ratings would start rolling by March 2014 – we went easy on the TV ratings regulations and got government approval in mid-January 2014. TAM had 30 days to shape up; if it did not do so, then there would be a minimal rating blackout period, with BARC rolling out its ratings.”

    In fact, even as the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) had recommended a tranistion period of six months for TAM Media, the MIB had in its recommendations said zero days, but that was finally extended to 30 days by the Cabinet.

    The MIB has stated that it will take on any legal challenges, which are posed against the regulations.  Industry executives can expect some skirmishes ahead – at least in the courts.