Back
High Court Of Delhi
ONLINE INDIA CAPITAL CO.PRIVATE LIMITED - Appellant
Versus
DIMENTION CORPORATE - Respondent
Interim Application 3708 of 2000
Decided On : 05/26/2000
DOMAIN NAME - INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY - [Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2, Civil Procedure Code, Common Law] - The court discussed the use of descriptive/generic words in domain names and the protection of such names under common law. It highlighted the need for a descriptive name to acquire a secondary meaning for protection and emphasized the acceptance of small differences to avert confusion.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff sought to restrain the defendant from using a website with a name similar to the plaintiff's, alleging deceptive similarity and potential business diversion. The defendant argued that the name was descriptive and not entitled to protection.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the plaintiff did not establish a prima facie case for granting the ad interim injunction, considering the descriptive nature of the domain name and the lack of evidence showing its acquisition of a secondary meaning.
Issues: Deceptive similarity of domain names, protection of descriptive/generic names, potential business diversion
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for a descriptive name to acquire a secondary meaning for protection and accepted small differences to avert confusion.
Final Decision: The court denied the ad interim injunction, ruling in favor of the defendant based on the descriptive nature of the domain name and the lack of evidence showing its acquisition of a secondary meaning.
( 1 ) SUIT was filed seeking to restrain the defendant permanently from using thewebsite under the name of WWW. MUTUAL FUND INDIA. COM or in any otheridentical name, inter alia, alleging that plaintiff No. 2 acquired the proprietory rights ofwww. MUTUAL FUNDS INDIA. COM and assigned it in favour of plaintiff No. 1-company. Website WWW. MUTUAL FUNDS INDIA. COM was created on 5/05/1999. It is alleged that this website provides most comprehensive data on mutualfunds. Finding it to be highly informative, knowledgeable and useful the Templetonmutual Fund, DSP Merill Lynch Mutual Fund, Kotak Mahindra Mutual Fund, Alliancecapital Mutual Fund and Taurus Mutual Fund are advertising on the said website. Prudential ICICI Mutual Fund has also agreed to advertise for one year beginning 1/05/2000. SIDBI Venture Capital Co. Ltd. , has offered to participate in the sharecapital of Plaintiff No. 1 to the tune of Rs. 1. 5 crores. Other leading companies ofnorth India dealing in shares, securities and debentures too have approachedplaintiff No. 1 for investing in its share capital.
( 2 ) IT is pleaded that eleven member team of FORBES, a magazine of USA haslisted 150 sites as best of Web after considering 1500 websites all over the worldand the plaintiffs said website is one amongst four indian websites included in thatlist. The defendant has fraudulently and mischievously developed websites withalmost identical name - WWW. MUTUAL FUND INDIA. COM deleting alphabet s after the word FUND. It is alleged that the unwary persons from Trade, Industry,commerce and Investors are likely led to believe that the said website of defendantwhich has practically no information is that of the plaintiffs. The plaintiff No. 1 calledupon defendant to change the name of its website through the letter dated 2 5/03/2000 Directors of plaintiff NO. 1 - company also spoke to the directors of defendant to change the name but to no effect.
( 3 ) IN the suit. IA No. 3708/2000 under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 read with Section151 Civil Procedure Code was also filed by the plaintiffs for issue of ad interim injunction seeking torestrain the defendant from running of the website under the said name WWW. MUTUAL FUND INDIA. COM or in any other deceptively similar name.
( 4 ) WHEN the case was taken up on 2/05/2000, Sh. Rahul srivastava, Advocateput in appearance and stated that he has instructions to appear on behalf of thedefendant and sought time for filing written statement and reply Accordingly, defendantwas allowed three days time for filing written statement and reply and the case waspostponed to 8/05/2000 for hearing on said IA. Defendant has filed reply only on 6/05/2000.
( 5 ) IN short, it is alleged in the reply that the MUTUAL FUND is a descriptive/genericword and no monopoly can be claimed relation thereto by any person. The documentsfiled alongwith The plaint do not indicate the name of owner of website WWW. MUTVAL FUNDS INDIA. COM. on the date the defendant applied for registration ofthe domain name in question, it was not even aware of the existence of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs are a new company in existence for less than one year. The defendanthas been in existence for more than six years and has an enviable track record in thecorporate finance and allied services with a very impressive list of clientele. Plaintiffssaid domain name was registered six to seven months prior to the registration of thedefendant s above name Defendant s website is still under construction. It is statedthat as a part of its business development programme, the defendant planned aseries of websites on financial services and M/s. First Online Ltd. , was incorporatedin 1996 by the defendant in collaboration with Thapar Group. Sites already launchedby the defendant are being managed by M/s. First online Ltd. , under licence from thedefendant. Names of some of the websites for which the defendant has registereddomain names have been disclosed in para No. XXVI of the
AI
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
