Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
C. Hari Shankar, J.
Snapdeal Private Limited - Appellant
Versus
Godaddycom LLC - Respondent
CS(COMM) 176 of 2021, LA. 5407 of 2021
Decided On : 18-04-2022
Important Points
Subject
Intellectual Property - Trademark Law
Headnote
(B) Injunctions - The requirement for an interim injunction for future domain names containing the word 'SNAPDEAL' was denied, emphasising the impossibility of issuing a blanket restriction without specific evidence of infringement and the individuality of each domain registration. (Paras 94-99)
Facts of the case:
Plaintiff Snapdeal is the registered holder of various trademarks including SNAPDEAL and alleges that domain registrars enable the registration of infringing domains, resulting in unauthorized usage. They seek preventive measures against the registrars to curb further trademark violations. (Paras 4, 15, 35)
Findings of Court:
DNRs were determined to be intermediaries per IT Act definitions and held liable for facilitating the registration of infringing domain names. The court found no basis for a global ban on registrations without knowing specific instances of infringement. (Paras 29, 80-100)
Issues: The main questions were the intermediary status of DNRs, their liability for infringement, and the validity of a quia timet action for broadly applied injunctions against future registrations. (Paras 52, 94-96)
Ratio Decidendi: The court affirmed that mere registration does not indicate infringement unless actual use is established. A quia timet injunction requires specific actionable knowledge of infringing activities rather than speculative fears. (Paras 93, 96)
Result: The application for an injunction to stop all future registrations of 'SNAPDEAL' was rejected; DNRs are not liable for all possible future registrations without current actionable evidence.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. registration of trade marks (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. relief sought against domain name registrants (Para 7 , 8 , 15 , 16) |
| 3. prior court proceedings against alleged infringers (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 4. defendants' stance on opposing the plaint (Para 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 5. plaintiff's argument on trademark infringement (Para 21 , 22 , 25 , 28) |
| 6. intermediary definition under the it act (Para 39 , 40) |
| 7. issues for consideration in judgment (Para 52 , 53 , 54) |
| 8. infringement of trademarks in domain name registration (Para 68 , 75) |
| 9. rejection of interim injunction (Para 99 , 100 , 101) |
JUDGMENT
LA. 5407/2021 in CS(COMM) 176/2021
1. The plaintiff is the registered proprietor of the following trade marks:
| Trademark | Registration No. | Class | Registration Date | Status |
 | 1950285 | 35, 38 | 15/04/2010 | Registered |
| SNAP DEAL | 1950286 | 35, 38 | 15/04/2010 | Registered |
| SNAPDEAL.COM | 2102124 | 35, 38 | 18/02/2011 | Registered |
| SNAPDEAL | 2126759 | 39 | 07/04/2011 | Registered |
 | 3203510 | 35 | 05/03/2016 | Registered |
 | 3525400 | 35 | 14/04/2017 | Registered |
 | 3525401 | 35 | 14/04/2017 | Registered |
 | 3525407 | 35 | 14/04/2017 | Registered |
 | 3191889 | 35 | 22/02/2016 | Registered |
2. The plaintiff refers to these marks, collectively, as the "SNAPDEAL trade marks" and I shall use the same expression.
3. Defendants 1 to 32 in this plaint are Domain Name Registrars ("DNRs", hereinafter), who provide domain names for parties who may seek to register their respective websites under such domain names. Defendant 33 is the Department of Telecommunications and Defendant 34 is the National Internet Exchange of India (NIXI).
4. The plaint alleges that various third parties, with whom the plaintiff has no connection or association whatsoever, are registering domain names which include the "SNAPDEAL" word/thread. These domain names, it is alleged, are infringing in nature, as the plaintiff is the registered proprietor of the "SNAPDEAL" trade mark. It is also alleged that such third parties are, through the websites operating under the said domain names, carrying out illegal activities, such as providing lucky draws etc. and are also, in certain cases, posing as customer care centres for the plaintiff's products. All this, it is submitted, is taking place without the plaintiff's license or authorization.
5. I may note, at this juncture, that none of the said registrants have been impleaded as a party in this plaint. Accordingly, the Court need not concern itself, in the present case, with the allegedly illegal activities of such registrants. It is obviously impermissible for the Court to return any qualitative finding in that regard, without the registrants themselves being impleaded in the proceedings.
6. The relief sought by the plaintiff is solely against the DNRs.
7. According to the plaintiff, by offering, for registration, domain names which include the thread "SNAPDEAL", the domain registrants are facilitating infringement of the plaintiff's registered mark and are also themselves infringers within the meaning of Sections 281 and 292 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 ("the Trade Marks Act").
8. This, submits the plaintiff, has provoked the plaintiff to approach this Court on multiple occasions, inter alia, by way of CS (COMM) 1214/2018 (Snapdeal Pvt. Ltd. v. Aadi Sins) and CS (COMM) 621/2019 (Snapdeal Pvt. Ltd. v. Grievance Officer of Twitter India Twitter International Company) and CS (COMM) 264/2020 (Snapdeal Pvt. Ltd. v. snapdealluckydraws.org.in).
9. In Snapdeal Pvt. Ltd. v. Aadi Sins, this Court, vide order dated 1st November, 2018, injuncted registrants using domain names including the thread "SNAPDEAL" from infringing the registered SNAPDEAL marks of the plaintiff. The concerned DNRs were also directed to suspend such fraudulent domain names and banks were directed to freeze the accounts in which the websites operating under the said domain names directed persons to deposit monies. This injunction was, vide order dated 8th January, 2019, extended to further domain names found to be indulging in similar activiti
