SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2001 Supreme(Del) 521

High Court Of Delhi
ACQUA MINERALS LIMITED - Appellant
Versus
PRAMOD BORSE - Respondent
Suit 371 of 2000
Decided On : 04/24/2001

Advocates Appeared:
PRATIBHA M.SINGH, Radha Chawla, RAJIV NAYAR

Domain names have the same legal protection as trade names under the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958, and are entitled to equal protection. Bad faith registration and use of domain names constitute trademark infringement and passing off.

Headnote:

BISLERI - Trademark Infringement - Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 - Section 8, Section 29 - The court discussed the protection of domain names under the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 and the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy. It highlighted the importance of domain names in the internet era and the legal principles governing their registration and use.

Fact of the Case:

The plaintiff sought a decree for permanent injunction against the defendants for using the mark BISLERI as part of their domain name, alleging trademark infringement, passing off, and copyright infringement. The plaintiff claimed exclusive rights over the BISLERI mark and its unique manner of writing.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the defendants registered the domain name BISLERI-com with malafide and fraudulent intentions, intending to trade on the plaintiff's reputation and goodwill. The defendants' actions constituted trademark infringement, passing off, and bad faith registration of the domain name.

Issues: The key issues included the protection of domain names under the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958, the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy, and the defendants' intention in registering the domain name BISLERI-com.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that domain names have the same legal sanctity as trade names and are entitled to equal protection under the law. It emphasized the importance of protecting domain names in the internet era and the need to prevent bad faith registration and use of domain names.

Final Decision: The court decreed in favor of the plaintiff, granting a permanent injunction against the defendants and allowing the plaintiff to approach the Network Solution Inc. to transfer the domain name BISLERI-com.

J. D. Kapoor

( 1 ) THROUGH this suit the plaintiff has sought a decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their partners from using the mark BISLERI and/or BISLERI. corn as part of their domain name or in any other mariner whatsoever as for any products, goods or services so as to result in passing off, an infringement of copyright and directing them to transfer the domain name BISLERI-com to the plaintiff-

( 2 ) THE case of the plaintiff in brief is that it is the registered proprietor of the trade mark BISLERI and is registered under the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) bearing No. 260716 dated 20/11/1969 and is also the owner of the copyright in the BISLERI word and the unique manner in which it is written. Its mark BISLERI is extremely well known in the Indian market and was one of the first marks introduced for bottled mineral water in India. The bisleri water is distributed in over 500 towns and cities of India and constitutes 70% of the branded bottled mineral water in the country. That it has a huge distribution network all over the country which ensures that the mineral water under the mark BISLERI is made available to consumers all over the country. That plaintiff has also spent huge sums of money on the advertisement and publicity of its product BISLERI and its reputation has grown over the years as result of enormous consumer confidence and trust in the mineral water and the mark BISLERI has come to be associated exclusively with the plaintiff and, therefore, belongs to the plaintiff and no one else has the right to use the said mark in relation to any product whatsoever.

( 3 ) THAT the word BISLERI has no dictionary meaning and is an Italian surname which is entitled to the highest degree of protection like various other surnames which fall in this category namely Colgate, Bata etc. One mr. Felice Bisleri, an Italian entrepreneur has set up business of mineral water in India and the business was bought by on the plaintiff s group companies and all the rights in the BISLERI mark now vest exclusively in the plaintiff company.

( 4 ) IN order to have easy access for the consumers, each and every manufacturer, trader or service provides is allotted one or re names by which the consumer can access the information relating to the said manufacturer or service provider. Such a name is called the domain name and It is registered with the Registering Authority. One of such authorities is Network Solutions Inc.

( 5 ) THE plaintiff had applied for registration of its name as bisleri-com. However, In January, 2000, the plaintiff came to know about the Illegal and unlawful registration of this domain name by the defendant on 11/12/1999 and on visiting or searching from the website of the Authority it was found that it has been registered in the name of defendant No. 2 and defendant no. 1 was the Technical Contact for defendant No. 2.

( 6 ) THAT In view of the fact that the mark BISLERI is the property of the plaintiff and is registered under the TMM Act confusion is bound to take place when a person wishes to know about the product of the plaintiff. It will go to the vebsite and type bisleri. com and he will be taken to the website of the defendant which has nothing to do with the plaintiff s goods for business. Thus this constitutes a mischief of passing off by the defendants.

( 7 ) THAT the malafide and fraudulent intentions of the defendants came to the light to the plaintiff when it was revealed that the defendants have already their own domain Name namely info@cyberworld. COM and are merely using the domain name of the plaintiff in order to trade in it and/or to pressurise the plaintiff to part with huge sums of money for the same and as a blocking or trafficking tactic.

( 8 ) WHEN the plaintiff called upon the defendants to immediately transfer the rights of the said domain name in the name of the plaintiff the defendants demanded large sums of money for doing









































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top