Back
2022 Supreme(Del) 140
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Jyoti Singh, J.
Sporta Technologies - Appellant
Versus
Unfading Opc Private Limited - Respondent
CS(COMM) 202/2022
Decided On : 01-04-2022
Mr. Shwetasree Majumder And Mr. Rohan Krishna Seth, Advocates, for the Appellant.
Grant of ex parte ad-interim injunction based on the prima facie case for infringement of trademarks and passing off.
Headnote:
Order 1 - Additional Documents - Commercial Courts Act, 2015 - Order 11 Rule 1 (4) CPC
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiffs sought leave to file additional documents under Order 11 Rule 1 (4) CPC. Plaintiffs were granted exemption to file originals, clearer copies, and documents with proper margins within four weeks. The plaint was registered as a suit and various procedural directions were given.
Finding of the Court:
Plaintiffs made out a prima facie case for grant of ex parte ad-interim injunction. Balance of convenience lies in favor of the Plaintiffs and they are likely to suffer irreparable harm if the injunction is not granted.
Issues: Infringement of trademark 'Dream11' by the Defendant and the grant of ex parte ad-interim injunction.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the Defendant's use of the mark 'SattaDream11' or any deceptively similar variant thereof amounted to infringement of the Plaintiffs' 'Dream11' trademarks and passing off thereto. The court granted an ex parte ad-interim injunction restraining the Defendant from using the mark.
Final Decision: Defendant, its directors, representatives, and/or other(s) acting for/on its behalf are restrained from using the mark 'SattaDream11' or any deceptively similar variant thereof as the trademark, trade name, domain name, or on social media, email addresses, or in any other manner which amounts to infringement of the Plaintiffs' 'Dream11' trademarks or passing off thereto, till the next date of hearing. Godaddy.com LLC is directed to suspend access to the domain name www.sattadream11.com within a period of one week from the date of receipt of this order.
ORDER
1. Present application has been preferred on behalf of the Plaintiffs seeking leave to file additional documents under Order 11 Rule 1 (4) CPC.
2. Plaintiffs, if they wish to file additional documents at a later stage, shall do so strictly as per the provisions of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
3. Application is disposed of.
I.A. 5074/2022 (filing original documents)
4. Subject to the Plaintiffs filing originals, clearer copies and documents with proper margins, which they may seek to place reliance, within four weeks from today, exemption is granted.
5. Application is allowed and disposed of.
CS(COMM) 202/2022
6. Let plaint be registered as a suit.
7. Upon filing of process fee, issue summons to Defendant, through all permissible modes, returnable on 11.07.2022. Summons shall state that the written statement shall be filed by the Defendant within 30 days from the receipt of summons. Along with the written statement, Defendant shall also file an affidavit of admission/denial of the documents of the Plaintiffs.
8. Replication be filed by the Plaintiffs within 15 days of the receipt of the written statement. Along with the replication, an affidavit of admission/denial of documents filed by the Defendant, shall be filed by the Plaintiffs. If any of the parties wish to seek inspection of any documents, the same shall be sought and given within the timelines.
9. List before the Joint Registrar for marking of exhibits on 11.07.2022.
10. List before the Court on 04.08.2022.
I.A. 5072/2022 (under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC)
11. Issue notice to the Defendant through all prescribed modes, returnable on 04.08.2022.
12. Present application has been preferred by the Plaintiffs under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 for grant of ex-parte ad-interim injunction.
13. Plaintiff No. 1 is a private limited company having its registered office at Mumbai. Plaintiff No.2 is a company incorporated in the United States of America and Plaintiff No. 1 is a wholly owned subsidiary of Plaintiff No.2.
14. It is averred in the plaint that Plaintiffs are a hugely popular and well-known fantasy sports platform launched in 2012 and are the official fantasy sports partner of the International Council of Cricket (ICC), The Campeonato Nacional de Liga de Premiera Division (La Liga), Vivo Indian Premier League (IPL), KFC Big Bash League (BBL), Hero Caribbean Premier League (CPL) T20, National Basketball Association (NBA), Vivo Pro Kabaddi League, International Hockey Federation (FIH), Hero Indian Super League and T20 Mumbai. Plaintiffs have also acquired official partner rights for the international and domestic matches of the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) since 2019.
15. It is averred by the Plaintiffs that Plaintiff No. 2 is the registered proprietor of, inter alia, the trademark Dream 11 in a number of classes in India. It also registered the domain www.dream 11.com on 17.03.2008. Details of the registrations are mentioned in paras 7 and 8 of the plaint. The registrations are valid and subsisting.
16. It is further averred that the Plaintiffs' mobile and online platform have over 12 crore users playing fantasy, cricket, hockey, football, etc. as on the present date. Plaintiffs' rights over the trademark 'Dream 11' have been upheld by this Court in several suits against many third parties, who have used variants of 'Dream 11' in their domain names such as 'eDream11', 'dream 11.bet', 'mydream11', etc.
17. It is the case of the Plaintiffs that Defendant is the owner and operator of the website www. sattadream11. com which appears to have been registered on 01.11.2021. Defendant appears to be offering sports betting services on their website, which by their nature are illegal in India. Defendant is not only using the mark "Satta Dream11" as a word, but also the logo
, the dominant part of which is the Plaintiffs' trademark 'DREAM 11', with the prefix "satta", which in Hindi language means and connotes gambling/betti
