The Delhi High Court Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) has refused to grant interim relief in a trademark infringement case involving Jigra over the use of its name. Alia Bhatt. However, the court has ordered Dharma Productions to insert a disclaimer at the beginning of the film, clarifying that the depiction is not intended to damage the reputation of the organization.Judge Tejas Karia issued the order while hearing a plea from MSF, which objected to its organization being depicted in the story. The film features a number of characters who pose as members of Doctors Without Borders to facilitate illegal escape across the border. “The Plaintiff has not been able to prove that the Defendants gained any unfair advantage by using the Plaintiff’s mark in the impugned film. However, considering the reputation of the Plaintiff in India and the manner in which the Plaintiff’s mark is being used, such use is likely to cause the court to damage the distinctive character and reputation of the mark.”While refusing to block the release of the film or the use of the trademark, the court emphasized the need for a balanced approach and directed the inclusion of an appropriate acknowledgment at the opening of the film.“In the interests of justice and to balance the convenience between the Parties, to reduce the damage to the distinctive character and reputation of the plaintiff’s mark in order to avoid irreparable losses to fight the lawsuit, during the pendency of this lawsuit, by ordering the defendants to show the appropriate Acknowledgment, the orders of 30 stated at the beginning of the contested film.”MSF, an international humanitarian organization operating under the name ‘Médecins Sans Frontières’, provides medical aid in conflict zones, epidemics, natural disasters and areas without health services. The non-profit organization works in more than 74 countries around the world.In its complaint, MSF argued that the film misrepresented its identity because it depicted people impersonating its staff for illegal border crossings, thereby damaging its reputation and infringing its brand. According to his lawyer, this portrayal creates a misleading and potentially harmful impression that his credibility can be exploited for illegal migration, suggesting that anyone can misuse his identity.The organization also said that “unauthorized use of its brand in connection with illegal border crossing takes unfair advantage and harms MSF’s goodwill and reputation.”The court accepted that the filmmakers had used MSF’s trademark, but stated that it was a participant in the narrative and that its deletion could affect the story. On the issue of unfair profits, the panel concluded that MSF had failed to prove that the filmmakers were profiting financially from the association. “It cannot be claimed that the defendants have obtained an economic advantage through unfair association with the Plaintiff Mark or by exploiting its reputation for their own benefit,” the court said.Furthermore, the court did not find that the film suggested any sponsorship or affiliation with MSF. He also highlighted the strong global level of the organization, seeing that its name is highly trusted by the authorities and citizens. At the same time, the court stated that the filmmakers relied on the credibility established by MSF to enhance the realism of the film, although they could have opted for a fictitious name instead.
