The Delhi High Court has refused to grant interim relief in the trademark infringement case filed by Doctors Without Borders over the use of its name in the film Jigra, starring Alia Bhatt. However, the court directed Dharma Productions to include a disclaimer at the beginning of the film, to make it clear that the filming is not intended to damage the reputation of the organisation.Justice Tejas Karia passed the order while hearing the petition of Doctors Without Borders, which objected to the depiction of her organization in the story. The film allegedly shows certain characters posing as members of Doctors Without Borders to facilitate illegal cross-border escape. “The plaintiff has not been able to prove that the defendants obtained any unfair advantage by using the plaintiff’s mark in the impugned film.
However, given the plaintiff’s reputation in India and the manner of use of the plaintiff’s mark, such use is likely to adversely affect the distinctive character and reputation of the plaintiff’s mark,” the court noted.While the court refused to restrict the release of the film or the use of the mark, it stressed the need for a balanced approach and directed that an appropriate acknowledgment be included in the opening of the film.
“It is in the interest of justice and balance between the parties, to limit the damage to the distinctive character and reputation of the plaintiff’s mark to avoid irreparable loss to the plaintiff during the pendency of this suit by directing the defendants to display an appropriate acknowledgment at the beginning of the impugned film,” the order dated April 30 said.Doctors Without Borders, an international humanitarian organization operating under the name Doctors Without Borders, provides medical assistance in areas of conflict, epidemics, natural disasters and areas lacking health care.
The non-profit organization operates in more than 74 countries around the world.MSF said in its petition that the film distorted its identity by depicting individuals impersonating its staff to cross the border illegally, damaging its reputation and infringing its brand. Her lawyer asserted that such a portrayal creates a misleading and potentially harmful impression that her credibility could be exploited for illegal immigration, suggesting that anyone could misuse their identity.The organization further claimed that “the unauthorized use of its mark in connection with illegal border crossings takes an unfair advantage and harms MSF’s goodwill and reputation.”The court acknowledged that the filmmakers did use the MSF sign, but noted that it was an integral part of the narrative and that its deletion may have affected the telling of the story. Regarding the issue of unfair gains, the tribunal concluded that MSF had failed to prove that the filmmakers received any financial benefit from the association.
“It cannot be asserted that the defendants gained any economic advantage through unfair association with the plaintiff’s mark or by leveraging its reputation for their own benefit,” the court noted.In addition, the court found no indication that the film indicated any endorsement or affiliation with Médecins Sans Frontières. He also highlighted the strong global position of the organization, noting that its name enjoys great trust among the authorities and the public alike. At the same time, the court noted that the filmmakers appeared to have relied on MSF’s established credibility to enhance the film’s realism, even though they could have chosen a fictional name instead.
