IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Prathiba M. Singh, J.
Yonex Co., Ltd & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
John Doe & Ors. - Respondents
CS (Comm) 293 of 2022 & I.A. 6992 of 2022
Decided On : 23-09-2022
YONEX - Trademark Infringement - Trade Marks Act, 1999, Section 2(1)(zg), Section 11(6) & (7), Rule 124 - The court granted an interim injunction against the use of the mark 'YONEX' as part of the domain name 'www.yonexindiastore.com'. The domain name was ordered to be blocked and transferred to the Plaintiffs due to the mark 'YONEX' being declared a well-known mark in India.
Fact of the Case:
The Plaintiffs filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining infringement of trade mark, copyright, passing off, and other reliefs in respect of their registered mark 'YONEX' used for sporting equipment and goods. The Plaintiffs were aggrieved by the registration of the domain name www.yonexindiastore.com.
Finding of the Court:
The court granted an interim injunction against the use of the mark 'YONEX' as part of the domain name 'www.yonexindiastore.com' and ordered the domain name to be blocked and transferred to the Plaintiffs due to the mark 'YONEX' being declared a well-known mark in India.
Issues: Trademark infringement, passing off, well-known mark declaration, domain name registration
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the well-known mark declaration of 'YONEX' in India and the need to protect the mark from infringement and passing off.
Final Decision: The suit was decreed in favor of the Plaintiffs, granting the interim injunction, transfer of the domain name, and declaration of the mark 'YONEX' as a well-known mark in India.
JUDGMENT
Prathiba M. Singh, (Oral), J. - This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
2. The present suit has been filed by the Plaintiffs for permanent injunction restraining infringement of trade mark, copyright, passing off, rendition of accounts and other reliefs in respect of their registered mark 'YONEX'. The said mark is used by the Plaintiffs for various sporting equipment, sporting goods, rackets, shuttlecocks, sporting apparels, etc. The Plaintiffs are aggrieved by the registration of the domain name www.yonexindiastore.com by unknown parties qua which reliefs are sought.
3. The matter was taken up for consideration by this Court on 11th May, 2022. On the said date, the Court had directed the Plaintiffs to implead the Domain Name Registrar ('DNR') of the impugned domain name as Defendant No.4 in order to enable the Court to pass orders. Thereafter, the Court had passed an ex parte ad interim injunction order dated 12th July, 2022 in the following terms:
4. This Court has perused the record. Clearly, the averments made in the plaint make out a case for the grant of an interim injunction against the use of the mark 'YONEX', as part of the domain name 'www.yonexindiastore.com'. The said website shall, accordingly, be blocked and specific orders shall be passed by Defendant Nos.2 and 3 in respect of the same.
5. Insofar as the Registrar- M/s NameSilo LLC is concerned, the Registry shall serve a copy of the present order upon its email address being 'support@namesilo.com'. Upon receipt of today's order, the Registrar shall block the said domain name and also maintain status quo. The Registrar shall also confirm the compliance of the orders of this Court to the Registry, by reply through email, failing which, directions would also be liable to be issued against M/s NameSilo LLC, which is a Registrar offering its services in India through its website and having its registered office in Phoenix, Arizona, USA.
6. List on 23rd September, 2022, for receipt of the report of the Registry, as also, the orders for blocking the domain name 'www.yonexindiastore.com' by Defendant Nos.2 and 3.
4. The Registry of this Court has reported that an email was sent to M/s NameSilo LLC, the DNR of the domain name www.yonexindiastore.com and the same has not bounced back. Ld. counsel for the Plaintiffs submits that the impugned website has been taken down.
5. None appears for the DNR- M/s NameSilo LLC and there is no compliance email which has been sent by the said DNR. The only email received by the Registry of this Court is dated 20th September, 2022 where it is stated as under:
'From: support@namesilo.com
Subject: Re:[##346959##] CS COMM 293-2022 D NO
14154-I
To: Suman Lata
Cc: support@namesilo.com
Reply To: support@namesilo.com
Hi.
Regarding this case please contact our legal department at legal@namesilo.com.
Thank you!
NameSilo Abuse Team'
6. From the plaint, it can be seen that the mark 'YONEX' is globally used in respect of sporting goods and articles. Plaintiff No.1- Yonex Sports Kabushiki Kaisha is a company incorporated in Japan in the year 1958. In 1973, Plaintiff No.1 changed its company and brand name to 'YONEX' and adopted a unique and distinct 'YY' logo along with blue and green color striped background. The said logo is reproduced hereinunder:
7. The label mark consisting of 'YY YONEX' has become a familiar sight on badminton and tennis court across the globe. The Plaintiffs are the leading worldwide manufacturers and distributors of sports goods, and equipment including racquet, shuttlecocks, strings, sportswear, apparels etc.
8. The mark 'YONEX' is registered in India since 1980 under Classes 18, 25 and 28. The details of the registrations is given in paragraph 9 of the plaint. The Plaintiffs have also registered the artistic work in respect of YONEX under the Copyright Act, 1957. YONEX products are sold in India through 350 dealers and wholesalers as well as major e-commerce platforms like Amazon, Flipkart, Snapdeal, etc.
9. From the averments
The central legal point established in the judgment is the protection of well-known trademarks from infringement and passing off under the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
The judgment establishes the importance of protecting intellectual property rights, territorial jurisdiction in infringement cases, and the enforcement of injunction orders through ICANN regulations.
In trademark infringement cases, courts cannot grant broad injunctions without identifying specific infringing domains; reliefs must target clearly defined trademarks as per Sections 28(1) and 29 of ....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the permanent restraint on the Defendants from using the mark 'AAJ TAK' or any deceptively similar mark for media, news, entertainment, or simil....
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, ....
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 emphasized the importance of strictly abiding by the injunction order and not extending it to any other domain names not covered by the order.
The court upheld that the plaintiff, as the registered proprietor of the well-known trademark 'CROMA', is entitled to injunction against the defendants' similar use and domain name registration, esta....
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.