The Delhi High Court has held that while the humanitarian organisation Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) possesses a significant reputation in India, its unauthorised mention in the film Jigra (Alia Bhatt starrer) does not satisfy the threshold of "unfair advantage" under Section 29(4) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. Accordingly, the Court declined to grant an interim injunction to remove the scenes or restrain the film's broadcast.

However, considering the reputation that MSF holds in the country, the Bench directed Dharma Productions, to include an "Acknowledgment" at the commencement of the film within four weeks. This disclaimer must clarify that the use of the mark is not intended to cause harm or detriment to the distinctive character and reputation of Médecins Sans Frontières. According to the Plaintiff, the portrayal by the Defendants had purportedly caused harm by diminishing the likelihood of donations to the Plaintiff.

Justice Tejas Karia observed, “…economic benefit alone does not suffice to establish an unfair advantage. The Plaintiff must demonstrate a probable risk of harm or damage to the Plaintiff’s Mark among consumers. Additionally, it is necessary to show that such unfair advantage leads to a change in the economic behaviour of the average consumer of the Plaintiff’s services, or at least a likelihood of such a change. In this instance, the Plaintiff has not provided any evidence of alteration in the perceptions or actions of donors resulting from the use of the Plaintiff’s Mark in the Impugned Film”.

Advocate Shwetasree Majumder appeared for the plaintiff and Senior Advocate Nakul Dewan appeared for the defendant.

The Plaintiff, Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF), also known as "Doctors Without Borders", is a Nobel Peace Prize-winning humanitarian organisation.

They discovered that the film Jigra, produced by Dharma Productions, featured scenes where protagonists disguise themselves as MSF representatives to facilitate a prison break and cross international borders into Malaysia. MSF contended that this association with illegal activities and deception tarnished its reputation as a neutral medical aid provider and could discourage potential donors.

MSF instituted a commercial suit seeking a permanent injunction against the filmmakers to restrain the broadcast of the impugned scenes. It filed an application for interim relief under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC. The Defendants argued that the use was de minimis, purely referential to lend realism to a fictional plot, and protected by the right to creative expression under Article 19(1)(a).

The Court found that the use of the mark was "in the course of trade" as a film is a commercial venture. However, it held that the Plaintiff failed to establish "unfair advantage". Placing reliance on precedents like ITC Ltd. v. Philip Morris Products SA 2010 SCC OnLine Del 27, the Bench noted that mere economic advantage is insufficient; the advantage must be "unfair", involving a parasitic exploitation of the mark's prestige.

“…Since the Impugned Film has received certification from the CBFC for public exhibition, it is presumed that the requirements stipulated under the Cinematograph Act, 1952 have been satisfied…”, it noted

While the Court acknowledged that the use was "without due cause" and potentially "detrimental to the distinctive character" of the mark, given its association with illegal border crossing, it found the Plaintiff’s claims regarding impacted donations to be speculative.

“The use of a Trade Mark may confer an unfair advantage on the user when it is employed with the intent to derive economic benefit by capitalising on the goodwill associated with the mark, which can further lead to its dilution and disparagement in the perception of the general public. In the present case, the Impugned Film has not utilised the Plaintiff’s Mark in any manner that suggests endorsement, affiliation, or involvement by the Plaintiff”, the Bench noted.

However, on reputation, the Bench noted, “Evidently, the Plaintiff holds an excellent reputation as an international organisation, with public authorities placing significant trust in the Plaintiff’s Mark. The Defendants selected the Plaintiff’s Mark due to its established reputation, to lend credence to the Impugned Film, else a fictitious name could also have been used. The Impugned Scenes utilise the Plaintiff’s Mark to depict the ease of crossing international borders without the need for a visa. Thus, the Plaintiff’s Mark was chosen solely on account of its repute. Consequently, the use of the Impugned Mark in the Impugned Film adversely affects the distinctive character and reputation of the Plaintiff’s Mark”.

Cause Title: Medecins Sans Frontieres International v. Dharma Productions Private Limited and Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:3670)

Appearances:

Plaintiff: Shwetasree Majumder, Priya Adlakha, and Urvi Nama, Advocates.

Defendants: Nakul Dewan, Senior Advocate, Nizam Pasha, and Saikrishna Rajagopal, Parag Khandhar, Krishan Kumar, Anaheeja Verma, Atmaja Tripathy, Gahena Gambani, Krishan Kumar, Sidharth Kaushik, Charu Sharma, Devvrat Joshi, Angad S Makkar, Advocates.

Click here to read/download the Judgment


Tags: