SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img



IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Prathiba M. Singh, J.
Government E Marketplace - Appellant
Versus
Unilex Consultants - Respondent
CS (COMM) 205 of 2020 & CCP(O) 25 of 2020 & I. As. 4967 of 2020, 4753-54 of 2021
Decided On : 18-04-2022




Trademark infringement requires a determining balance between informative use and avoiding public misrepresentation regarding affiliation. Nominative fair use is allowed if it does not imply sponsorship.

Headnote:(A) Trademarks Act, 1999 - Section 30(2) - Trademark infringement - Plaintiff, a national public procurement portal, sought injunction against defendants using the term ‘GeM’ in domain names, potentially misleading public association - Dismissal of claims by certain defendants who provided information without misleading association - Consent decree ordered against several defendants - Permitted defendants to describe services related to GeM without misrepresentation. (Paras 21-30)

(B) Nominative Fair Use - The court reiterated that nominative fair use is permissible if not misleading regarding affiliation or endorsement by the trademark owner, protecting informative use of the mark. (Paras 22-24)

JUDGMENT

Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)--This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

CS (COMM) 205/2020 & I.As. 4967/2020, 4753-54/2021

2. The present suit has been filed by the Plaintiff - The Government E Marketplace (hereinafter "GeM"), which is a National Public Procurement portal and end to end online marketplace from where both Central and State Government Ministries/Departments, CPSUs and SPSUs effect the procurement of goods and services. The mark used by the Plaintiff is `GeM' along with the logo, which is depicted below:

3. The case of the Plaintiff in the present suit is that there are several parties, who are either registering `GeM' in respect of procurement of goods and services as a domain name or using the term `GeM' as a URL extension of their usual websites. Some of the parties are providing services to enable businesses to register on the `GeM' portal. Therefore, the Plaintiff is aggrieved by the fact that the Defendants seemed to be claiming to the public at large, that they are associated with the Plaintiff, thereby misrepresenting their status qua the Plaintiff and also adversely impacting the Plaintiff's brand equity and goodwill. In the present case, the following URLs have been impugned:

1. https://www.unilexconsultants.com/registrations/GEM- Registration/

2. https://charteredmunshi.com/gem-registration

3. https://complykart.com/service/GEM-Registration

4. https://www.digitalsanjay.com/gem-registration-govemment-e-marketplace/

5. https://gemgov.in/

6. http://www.legalbrothers.in/service/gem-registration/

7. http://www.maanof.co.in/gem-registration.html

8. https://prospectdigital.in/gem-government-e-marketplace-registration-consultant/

9. https://www.e-startupindia.com/gem-registration.html

10. https://registrationseva.com/gem-registration-in-india/

11. https://www.legalsalaah.com/gem-registration.html

12. https://gem-registration.org/

13. https://apkpure.com/

14. https://www.ezzus.com/services/gems-portal-registration

4. In the present suit, various persons who are using the objectionable domain names/URL extensions have been impleaded as Defendant Nos.1 to 11. Defendant Nos.12 to 14 are registered by John Does, whose whereabouts are not known. Defendant No.15 is the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (hereinafter "MEITY"). Defendant Nos.16 to 18 are the Registrars of various domain names/URLs, wherein the objectionable term `GeM' has been used. Defendant No.19 is a company where Defendant No.2 is a shareholder and director. Various orders have been passed from time to time in this matter. A brief background of the decrees passed against various Defendants is captured hereinbelow.

5. Initially, vide order dated 1st July, 2020, an ad interim injunction was passed in this matter, directing suspension of the impugned domain names in the following terms:

    "9. I am, for the moment, persuaded by the arguments advanced by Mr. Sharma that if interim relief, as sought for, is not granted, it would jeopardise not only the interest of the plaintiff, but of the users at large, and thus, impact, inter alia, public interest as well.

    XXX

    11. Accordingly, till the next date of hearing, the Registrars of the domain names concerning defendant Nos.1 to 14 shall suspend the domain names of defendant Nos. 1 to 14.

    11.1 The Registrars of domain names, who have been arrayed as parties, are shown as defendant Nos.16 to 18 in the memo of parties.

    11.2 Defendant No. 16 to 18 will comply the directions issued hereinabove, immediately, upon receipt of a copy of the order passed today."

6. Thereafter, on 17th July, 2020, vide two applications being filed on behalf Defendant Nos.9 & 10, the said Defendants agreed not to include the URL extension `gem.registration.html' or any other deceptively similar URL extension, as part of their domain names. The said order reads as under:

    "3.1 Furthermore, learne

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top