IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
C. Hari Shankar, J.
Western Digital Technologies, Inc - Appellant
Versus
Sumit Pandey & Ors. - Respondents
Civil Suit (COMM) No. 240 of 2021
Decided On : 09-11-2021
Trademark Infringement - Western Digital Trademarks - Trademarks Act, 1999 - Section 2(1)(zg), Section 13456829, Section 264653935, Section 24915899, Section 37922659, Section 16951789, Section 25058549, Section 25232709 - The court found Defendant 1 guilty of trademark infringement by using domain names containing the plaintiff's trademarks. The WIPO transferred the impugned domain names in favor of the plaintiff. The court decreed a permanent injunction against Defendant 1 and 4 from using or operating under any domain name containing the plaintiff's trademarks.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff alleged trademark infringement by Defendant 1 for using domain names containing the plaintiff's trademarks 'WESTERN DIGITAL', 'WD', 'MY PASSPORT', and 'MY CLOUD'. Defendant 1 was found to be operating unauthorized support centers for the plaintiff's products.
Finding of the Court:
The court found Defendant 1 guilty of trademark infringement and passed a decree of permanent injunction against Defendant 1 and 4 from using or operating under any domain name containing the plaintiff's trademarks.
Issues: Trademark infringement, unauthorized use of domain names, unauthorized support services for the plaintiff's products.
Ratio Decidendi: Defendant 1 was found guilty of trademark infringement by using domain names containing the plaintiff's trademarks. The WIPO transferred the impugned domain names in favor of the plaintiff.
Final Decision: The court decreed a permanent injunction against Defendant 1 and 4 from using or operating under any domain name containing the plaintiff's trademarks.
JUDGMENT
C. Hari Shankar, J. - CS(COMM) 240/2021
1. The plaint alleges infringement, by Defendant 1, of the trademarks "WESTERN DIGITAL", "WD", "MY PASSPORT" and "MY CLOUD" (referred to, jointly, in the plaint as the "Western Digital Trademarks").
2. The plaintiff claims to be a world renowned manufacturer of storage devices, media player, routers/switches/bridges, solid state drives, software and mobile applications, manufactured and sold under the Western Digital Trademarks.
3. The plaint alleges that Defendant 1 has registered the domain names "wd-my-passport.com", "wdmypassport.co" and "support-wdc.com". In registering these domain names, the plaint alleges that the defendants are attempting to make it appear that they are associated with the plaintiff by incorporating, in the domain names, the plaintiffs registered trademarks "WD" and "MY PASSPORT".
4. The plaintiff claims to have adopted its corporate name and trademark "Western Digital" in July, 1971. It is further asserted that the plaintiffs logo is its corporate logo and is present on all its products, labels and packaging. "Western Digital", it is asserted, is the most essential feature of the plaintiffs corporate name. The plaintiff claims to be using the registered trademarks "Western Digital" since 1997, "WD" since 1999 and "MY PASSPORT" since 2008. The plaint also asserts that, by dint of long and established user, these trademarks merit being regarded as "well-known trade marks" within the meaning of Section 2(1)(zg) of the Trademarks Act, 1999.
5. The plaint provides a tabular depiction of the various registered trademarks of the plaintiff, thus:
Number | Class | Date | |
WESTERN DIGITAL | 1345682 | 9 | March 18, 2005 |
WESTERN DIGITAL | 2646539 | 35 & 37 | December 20,2013 |
WD | 1349235 | 9 | April 6, 2005 |
WD | 2491589 | 9 | March 7, 2013 |
| 1325732 | 9 | December 14,2004 |
WD | 2646540 | 35 & 37 | December 20,2013 |
MY PASSPORT GO | 3792265 | 9 | March 29, 2018 |
MY PASSPORT | 1695178 | 9 | June 4, 2008 |
MY CLOUD | 2505854 | 9 & 42 | April 2, 2013 |
MY ELEMENTS | 2523270 | 9, 16, 42 | May 1, 2013 |
These trademarks, it is asserted, continue to remain valid and subsisting in law till date.
6. The plaintiff also claims to be the owner of various websites, the domain names of which contain "WESTERN DIGITAL" or "WD", which are used for marketing and selling "WD" products. Some of these are:
(i) www.wd.com - created on 25th May, 1994,
(ii) www.wdc.com - created on 15th May, 1992,
(iii) www.westerndigital.com - created on 21st January, 1998,
(iv) www.wdstore.com - created on 23rd May, 2001,
(v) www.westerndigital.info - created on 12th September, 2001,
(vi) www.westerndigital.biz - created on 28th March, 2002
and
(vii) www.westerndigital.asia - created on 17th March, 2008.
7. The plaintiff claims to have received, on 30th April, 2021, an email from one of its customers, informing the plaintiff that it was being attempted to be impersonated and that unauthorized customer support, for the plaintiffs products, was being provided by others for commercial consideration. It is claimed that US $ 199 was being charged for providing the said support, whereas the plaintiff asserts that it does not charge any sum for customer services provided by it for its products.
8. On enquiry, the plaintiff came to know that Defendant 1 was responsible for the said fraudulent representation using its domain name "www.wd-my-passport.com", and also came across the telephone number of Defendant 1. The plaint claims that the domain name manager of the plaintiff, on inquiry, found that the registrant of the aforesaid domain "www.wd-my-passport.com" was Defendant 1, Sumit Pandey. Defendant 1 is claimed to be also owning the domain names "www.wdmypassport.co" and "www.support-wdc.com".
9. On its website https://www.wdmypassport.co, it is claimed that Defendant 1 provides basic information on how to use and set up some of the plaintiffs products, including "WD PASSPORT", "MY ELEMENTS", "MY BOOK", "WD BLACK", "MY CLOUD" and "MY CLOUDHOME", thereby misleading customers into believing that Defendant 1 is associated with the plaintiff a
Trademark infringement by unauthorized use of domain names containing registered trademarks.
The court established that unauthorized use of well-known trademarks through misleading domain names constitutes trademark infringement requiring injunction.
The court established that the unauthorized use of identical trademarks constitutes infringement and passing off, justifying a permanent injunction and awarding damages to the rightful trademark owne....
Trademark infringement occurs when a defendant uses an identical or deceptively similar mark causing confusion to consumers. The plaintiff establishes exclusive rights through registration and extens....
Trademark owners can prevent unauthorized sales of altered goods bearing their marks, affirming the right to trade mark integrity and consumer protection.
The court affirmed the plaintiffs' rights against infringement and passing off, validating their trademarks through established goodwill and allowing for summary judgment due to the defendant's non-a....
The court upheld the trademarks' protection against infringement, emphasizing the role of well-known trademarks in deterring cyber-squatting and unauthorized usage.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.