Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Navin Chawla, J.
Sporta Technologies Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. - Plaintiffs
Versus
Virat Saxena - Defendant
CS(COMM) 59 of 2020 & I.A.1688 of 2020
Decided On : 25-11-2022
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order XIII-A – IPD Rules – Rule 27 –Delhi High Court Intellectual Property Rights Division Rules, 2022 – Rule 27 – Public Gambling Act, 1867 – Trade Marks Act, 1999 – Permanent injunction restraining defendant – International Cricket Council – Board of Cricket Control of India – Plaintiff no. 1 is a private limited company incorporated and later underwent a change of name from ‘Adwaiya Realtors Private Limited’ to ‘Dream11 Fantasy Private Limited.
Finding of the court :
Court has held that the right of a proprietor in a domain name is entitled to equal protection, applying principles of trade mark law – Use of same or similar domain name may lead to diversion of users, which could result from such users mistakenly accessing one domain name instead of another – Domain name may have all the characteristics of a trade mark and could found an action for passing off – defendant has chosen neither to file its written statements nor to enter appearance in suit to defend same – In Court opinion, therefore, this is a fit case where a Summary Judgment in terms of Order XIII-A of CPC, as applicable to commercial disputes of a specified value, read with Rule 27 of IPD Rules deserves to be passed in favour of plaintiffs and against defendant.
Results : Ordered Accordingly.
JUDGMENT :
1. The present suit has been filed seeking a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendant, its proprietor, employees, partners, representatives and/or others acting for and on their behalf from using the mark ‘Dream11’ or any deceptively similar variant thereof, as a trade mark, trade name or domain name www.dream11.bet or on social media, email addresses or in any other manner, which amounts to the infringement of and/or passing off the plaintiffs’ trade marks as listed in the plaint, such as ‘Dream11/
(hereinafter referred to as ‘Dream11 Marks’).
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
2. The plaintiff no. 1 is a private limited company incorporated on 21.06.2007 and later underwent a change of name from ‘Adwaiya Realtors Private Limited’ to ‘Dream11 Fantasy Private Limited’ in the year 2013. The plaintiff no. 2 is a company incorporated under the laws of the State of Delaware, the United States of America. The plaintiff no. 1 is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the plaintiff no. 2.
3. The plaintiffs’ fantasy sports platform under the trade mark/trade name ‘Dream11’ (adopted in the year 2012), is an online multi-player game where the participants draft imaginary and virtual teams of real players of a professional sport. The teams so drafted get points based on the performance of the players in actual games, where the underlying real-world games provide statistics for the virtual teams so created and the players earn points based on these statistics. The top teams of each contest are rewarded monetarily from a Prize Pool, where the amount won can be withdrawn by a participant from their verified Bank Account, subject to the submission of their Permanent Account Number and its due verification.
4. The plaintiffs have been the ‘Official Fantasy Partners’ of all International Cricket Council (in short, ‘ICC’) events starting from the year 2018, wherein their website/mobile application bearing the ‘Dream11 Marks’ have been partners for events such as the Vivo Indian Premier League (in short, ‘IPL’), KFC BBL, Hero CPL T20, NBA, Vivo Pro Kabaddi, International Hockey Federation, Hero Indian Super League and T20 Mumbai.
5. The plaintiffs have signed a Central Sponsorship contract with the Board of Cricket Control of India (in short, ‘BCCI’) for the IPL for four years, starting in the year 2019. The plaintiffs also have a long-term ‘Official Fantasy Sports Provider’ deal with the ICC for all the tournaments, which were particularly widespread during the ICC Men’s Cricket World Cup 2019. For both tournaments, the plaintiffs organised daily contests and season-long fantasy games for fan engagement utilizing their services bearing the ‘Dream11 Marks’.
6. The services of the plaintiffs bearing the ‘Dream11 Marks’ have been promoted by eminent Indian cricketers such as Mahendra Singh Dhoni, Harsha Bhogle, R Ashwin, Jasprit Bumrah, Rishabh Pant, Dinesh Karthik and Ajinkya Rahane; as also international players such as AB De Villiers, Andre Russell, Kane Williamson and Ben Stokes.
7. As on the date of filing of the Suit, it is the contention of the plaintiffs that their online and mobile platform bearing the ‘Dream11 Marks’ have over 7.5 Crore subscribers, who use the platform to participate in various fantasy games.
8. The plaintiff no. 1 is the registered proprietor of trade marks, which have been accorded protection under the provisions of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (in short, ‘the Act’), the details whereof are as follows:
9. The plaintiff no. 2, vide assignment from ‘Clover Media Private Limited’, is the registered proprietor of the domain name www.dream11.com as also the registered proprietor of the following trade marks in India:
10. It is the case of the plaintiffs that in December, 2019, the plaintiffs learnt of the domain name www.dream11.bet being operated by the defendant as also a YouTube Channel, which contained match-prediction videos and two videos which openly touted the website with the domain name www.dream11.bet to be a gambling website
Rule 3 of Order XIIIA, CPC, as applicable to commercial disputes.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Defendant's use of a deceptively similar mark to the Plaintiff's registered trademark amounted to trademark infringement and passing off, ....
Right of a proprietor in a domain name is entitled to equal protection, applying principles of trade mark law.
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 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....
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
