Pradeep Nandrajog, J.

( 1 ) DEFENDANTS were proceeded ex parle. Plaintiffs have led affidavit by way of evidence. Case of the plaintiffs is that the first plaintiff, by virtue of an agreement dated 20. 7. 2000 took over the operations of plaintiff No. 2 as a going concern. Plaintiff No. 2 had a news portal www. tehelka. com . Since plaintiff No. 2 faced difficulties in registering the domain name from India, one of its employees, Aniruddha Bahal requested his cousin, Ashish Mehra to register the domain name, www. tehelka. com with the understanding th?t at a future date, domain name would be assigned to the plaintiffs. Domain name was registered with the registering authority. register. com. Inc. Subsequently, Mr. Ashish Mehra assigned the domain name to plaintiff No. 2 in March 2000.

( 2 ) IT is accordingly claimed that in view of the agreement dated 20. 7. 2000 between the plaintiffs, plaintiff No. 1 has become the absolute owner and proprietor of the domain name, www. tehelka. com.

( 3 ) IT is stated that the name tehelka is a word chosen by the plaintiffs as a domain name. It is not a word of common usage and is not related to the service of news.

( 4 ) IT is stated that defendant No. 2 which appears to be an entity of defendant No. 1 registered the domain name, www. tahelka. com . It appeared for the first time somewhere in January, 2000. It is also averred that the defendants had lifted material from the website of the plaintiffs and in particular, the transcripts of the conversation between certain cricketers and had posted the same at its website.

( 5 ) IT has been accordingly prayed that the defendants be injuncted from using the word tehelka or tahelka or any other name which is identical with or deceptively similar to the plaintiffs trade mark/name tehelka or containing the word tehelka as an essential or dominant feature thereof. Prayer for transfer of the domain name, tahelka. com to plaintiff No. 2 from the register of Internet Network Information Centre is also prayed for. Plaintiffs have also claimed damages in sum of Rs. 10 lakhs for eroding, diluting and reducing the value of the website of the plaintiffs.

( 6 ). By way of evidence led, following documents have been proved: (i) Exs. P1 and P2, being the Power of Attorney in favour of Mr. Tarun j. Tejpal to institute the suit and verify pleadings. (ii) Ex. P5, being the registration details of the domain name tehelka. com . (iii) Ex. P6 being the assignment by Mr. Manoj Prabhakar (a cricketer) of the copyright in the sound records of the conversation recorded by him with various persons, to plaintiff No. 2. (iv) Exs. P7 to P16, being transcript of the conversation on plaintiffs website and on the defendants website.

( 7 ) IN view of the evidence led, it stands established that plaintiff No. 1 is the owner of the domain name www. tehelka. com . It also stands established that the defendant has deceptively started using the word tahelka as its domain name which is deceptively similar to the word tehelka .

( 8 ) THE question whether internet domain names are subject to the legal norms applicable to other intellectual properties such as trade marks was a subject matter of consideration before the Supreme Court in C. A. No. 3028/ 2004=iv (2004) SLT 219, Satyam Infoway Ltd. v. Sifynet Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Taking note of the definition of trade mark , mark goods and services in sections 2 (zb), 2 (m), 2 (j) and 2 (2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, Their Lordships posing the question whether a domain name can be said to be a word or name which is capable of distinguishing the subject of trade or service made available to potential users of the internet, in the context of the cumulative affect of the definitions of the words aforenotcd held: "12. The original role of a domain name was no doubt to provide an address for computers on the internet. But the internet had developed from a mere means of communication to a mode of carrying on com

Click Here to Read the rest of this document