Download Movies In 720p Khiladi 786 1080p
Phillipp Schneeberger
1 of 9What comes to your mind when you hear the word Khiladi? Akshay Kumar, of course! Akshay has starred in several movies under the 'Khiladi' series in the last two decades. And after a long time, he is making a comeback with Khiladi 786 this year. Have a look at the other movies from the 'Khiladi' series.
Khiladi (1992): Akshay Kumar got his name Khiladi from this film. The film was his breakthrough role and was a big hit at the box office. The movie also starred Ayesha Jhulka, Deepak Tijori and Sabeeha.
Main Khiladi Tu Anari (1993): This film is the second in the 'Khiladi' series. Akshay Kumar plays the role of a police inspector. The film also stars Saif Ali Khan, Shilpa Shetty and Raageshwari.
Sabse Bada Khiladi (1995): This action-thriller film was another hit from the series. The film is based on a novel called Lallu by Ved Prakash Sharma, and also starred yesteryear actress Mamta Kulkarni in the lead.
Mr and Mrs Khiladi (1997): After doing a series of action-packed films, Akshay starred in a comedy film under the 'Khiladi' series. Akshay was paired opposite the cute Juhi Chawla in the film.
International Khiladi (1999): Unlike other films from the series, International Khiladi didn't fair that well at the box office. Akshay Kumar was seen opposite his wife Twinkle Khanna in this film!
Khiladi 786 (2012): After a gap of 12 years, Akshay is making his comeback with the series - Khiladi 786. This film is an action-comedy and will get released by the end of this year.
Which of these is your favourite 'Khiladi' movie? Leave us a comment and let us know.
What comes to your mind when you hear the word Khiladi? Akshay Kumar, of course! Akshay has starred in several movies under the 'Khiladi' series in the last two decades. And after a long time, he is making a comeback with Khiladi 786 this year. Have a look at the other movies from the 'Khiladi' series.
What comes to your mind when you hear the word Khiladi? Akshay Kumar, of course! Akshay has starred in several movies under the \'Khiladi\' series in the last two decades. And after a long time, he is making a comeback with Khiladi 786 this year. Have a look at the other movies from the \'Khiladi\' series.
In the modern age of digital entertainment, movie titles carry immense significance. As illustrated by the 'Khiladi' trademark clash in Indian cinema, titles serve as crucial identifiers, attracting viewers and conveying the essence of the film. In a recent case of the Delhi High Court, Venus Worldwide Entertainment Private Limited vs. Popular Entertainment Network (Pen) Private Limited and Ors. delves into a trademark clash in Indian cinema, where a renowned film company seeks to safeguard its 'Khiladi' trademark, emphasizing the significance of titles in the entertainment world.
Defendant No. 1, an Indian Film and Distribution Company established in the year 1987, has been actively engaged in the creation and dissemination of cinematic works across Hindi, Telugu, and Tamil languages. Its role encompasses both production and distribution within the film industry. In tandem, Defendant No. 2 is recognized as a producer of the forthcoming Telugu film 'Khiladi' along with Defendant No. 1.
The lawsuit began when the Plaintiff learned about the Defendants' upcoming movie 'Khiladi' set for release on 11.02.2022 in Telugu, and Hindi too. Initially, the court discussion focused on the film's theatrical release. Later, they discussed potential changes to the movie's promotional tagline 'Play Smart' for digital and other platforms. The case was adjourned multiple times, and on 21.03.2022, the Plaintiff sought to halt any actions that could disrupt the situation. However, the Defendants had already released 'KHILADI' on Disney-Hotstar OTT Platform on 11.03.2022. The Plaintiff's application was dismissed, leading to further arguments on the case's merits as no immediate relief was granted to the Plaintiff.
The plaintiff asserted that they were the registered owner of the 'KHILADI' trademark and various 'KHILADI' related trademarks for cinematographic films and motion pictures, dating back to June 5th, 1992. They argued that they had the exclusive right to use these trademarks for the registered goods and services, and they sought legal remedies for any trademark infringement, as specified by the Trade Marks Act. Plaintiff argued that this case meets the triple identity test: (a) the marks are identical, (b) the products/services (cinematographic films and entertainment services) are identical, and (c) the territory is identical (India). Therefore, it squarely falls under Section 29(2)(c) of the Act, and the court shall presume it's likely to cause confusion among the public. The Plaintiff further argued that the film 'KHILADI' was a massive hit, making Mr Akshay Kumar 'Bollywood's Mr Khiladi.' The trademark 'KHILADI' is exclusively linked to the Plaintiff due to the movie's commercial success, extensive promotion, and public recognition. Since its 1992 release, 'KHILADI' is inseparably linked to the Plaintiff in the public's mind.
The Plaintiff argued that the Defendants should have done a trademark search before using the same name for their movie. They claim the Defendants acted dishonestly by using the Plaintiff's trademark and a similar image of a man, creating visual and conceptual similarities in the marks, in addition to phonetic similarities and the law recognizes the protection of film titles as strong trademarks, especially if they have gained a unique meaning like 'Khiladi' and others such as 'Sholay,' 'Zanjeer,' and 'Deewar and the Plaintiff further relied upon various judicial precedents in support of its contentions.
Defendant asserted that the film had already been released in theatres in both Telugu and Hindi dubbed versions on 11.02.2022 and is no longer running on theatres, respectively available on digital platforms. The defendant contended that no interim injunction should be granted since films cannot be treated like packaged goods. The Defendants further argued that the word 'KHILADI' is generic, not coined or arbitrary and the delay in Plaintiff's approach to the Court weakened their position. The Plaintiff's awareness of the film's progress through public domain announcements and the CBFC certification strengthens the Defendants' argument against the injunction.
After carefully examining the plaintiff's claims and the defendant's counterarguments, the High Court dismissed the plaintiff's application for interim relief and made several important observations. The court noted that while delay alone might not have defeated a claim, courts have been cautious about granting injunctions when approached belatedly or on the eve of a film's release. The court also acknowledged the discrepancy in the plaintiff's knowledge of the infringing film's progress and observed that the defendants had claimed their film's announcement was in the public domain since October 2020, while the Plaintiff argued they learned about it through a Hindi trailer in February 2022.
The court criticized the plaintiff for oversimplifying their claims and seeking exclusive rights over 'KHILADI.' The court observed that the plaintiff's comparison in the complaint focused solely on the device mark containing 'KHILADI,' rather than considering the device mark as a whole. This was because they realized that the device mark of the Plaintiff and the rival mark were not comparable.
The court, emphasized the paramount importance of conducting a thorough comparison of the marks, highlighting the differences between the marks and supporting the defendant's claim that the plaintiff's rights over "KHILADI" might not have been valid.
The court, pointed out several crucial issues with the plaintiff's case. The court emphasized the need for a detailed comparison of the marks and brought attention to the defendant's objections regarding omissions during the registration process. These omissions raised doubts about the plaintiff's claim of exclusivity over 'Khiladi' given their earlier stance. The court invoked the principles of prosecution history estoppel and the anti-dissection rule, stating that the withholding of vital information negated the plaintiff's entitlement to an interim injunction. The court cited case laws to support this view and concluded that the plaintiff was not entitled to an interim injunction.
It challenged the plaintiff's claim that 'KHILADI' was the dominant aspect of their trademark, emphasizing that most of the plaintiff's registered trademarks are 'device marks,' lacking specific registration for the word 'KHILADI' itself. The court cited a previous case to highlight that registration as a whole doesn't grant exclusive rights to individual words within the mark and that the plaintiff needed to prove distinctiveness through extensive use.
7fc3f7cf58