The Delhi High Court has declined to grant interim relief in a trademark infringement case filed by Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) over the use of its name in the Jigra, starring Alia Bhatt. However, the court has directed Dharma Productions to include a disclaimer at the beginning of the film, clarifying that the depiction is not meant to harm the organisation’s reputation.Justice Tejas Karia issued the order while hearing MSF’s plea, which objected to the portrayal of its organisation in the storyline. The film allegedly shows certain characters posing as members of Doctors Without Borders to facilitate an unlawful cross-border escape. “The Plaintiff has not been able to demonstrate that the Defendants obtained any unfair advantage by using the Plaintiff’s Mark in the Impugned Film. Nevertheless, considering the Plaintiff’s reputation in India and the manner of using the Plaintiff’s Mark, such use is likely to adversely affect the distinctive character and reputation of the Plaintiff’s Mark,” the court observed.While refusing to restrain the film’s release or use of the mark, the court stressed the need for a balancing approach and directed the inclusion of a suitable acknowledgment at the film’s opening.
“It is expedient in the interest of justice and to balance the convenience between the Parties, to restrict the detriment 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 Acknowledgement at the commencement of the Impugned Film,” the order dated April 30 stated.MSF, an international humanitarian organisation operating under the name ‘Médecins Sans Frontières’, provides medical assistance in conflict zones, epidemics, natural disasters, and areas lacking healthcare access. The non-profit works across more than 74 countries worldwide.In its plea, MSF argued that the film misrepresented its identity by depicting individuals impersonating its staff for illegal border crossings, thereby harming its reputation and infringing its trademark. Its counsel contended that such portrayal creates a misleading and potentially damaging impression that its credibility could be exploited for unlawful migration, suggesting that anyone could misuse its identity.The organisation further claimed that the “unauthorised use of its mark in connection with illegal border crossing takes unfair advantage and is detrimental to MSF’s goodwill and reputation.”The court acknowledged that the filmmakers had indeed used MSF’s mark but noted that it was integral to the narrative and that omitting it might have affected the storytelling. On the issue of unfair gain, the bench concluded that MSF failed to prove that the filmmakers derived any financial benefit from the association. “It cannot be asserted that the Defendants have gained any economic advantage through unjust association with the Plaintiff’s Mark or by leveraging its reputation for their own benefit,” the court noted.Additionally, the court found no indication that the film suggested any endorsement or affiliation with MSF. It also highlighted the organisation’s strong global standing, observing that its name carries significant trust among authorities and the public alike. At the same time, the court remarked that the filmmakers appeared to have relied on MSF’s established credibility to enhance the film’s realism, even though they could have opted for a fictional name instead.
