IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Prathiba M. Singh, J.
Livanova India Private Limited - Appellant
Versus
Godaddy.com, Inc. - Respondent
CS(COMM) 711 of 2021 and I.A. 17526 of 2021, 17527 of 2021
Decided On : 24-11-2022
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. plaintiff's claim regarding domain name infringement (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. injunction orders and their implications (Para 5 , 6 , 8 , 9) |
| 3. godaddy's position and compliance (Para 7 , 10) |
| 4. decree and conclusion of the suit (Para 11 , 12) |
JUDGMENT
Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)--This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
2. The present suit has been filed by the Plaintiff-LivaNova India Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter Plaintiff) against the two DNRs, Defendant No.1 Go Daddy LLC & Defendant No. 2-Domains by Proxy LLC, as also Defendant No. 3-Vodafone Idea Limited, Defendant No. 4-Department of Telecommunications (DOT), Defendant No. 5-Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MEITY), Defendant No. 6-Deputy Commissioner of Police, Delhi (Cyber Crime) and against Defendants 7 to 9-Ashok Kumar (unknown defendants).
3. The case of the Plaintiff is that it is a company registered in the United Kingdom engaging in the business of Medical Technologies and Services. It has a portfolio of several devices and operates in more than 100 countries. The Plaintiff's website https://www.livanova.com prominently portrays its businesses and displays various products of the Plaintiff. The said website has copyrighted content of the Plaintiff along with various marks, logos and designs including the flagship mark `LivaNova'.
4. The grievance in this case is that certain unknown Defendants had registered and adopted two domain names www.tylengene.com and www.tylliva.com. These two websites were engaged in inducing people to part with valuable consideration by creating content which was identical to the content of the Plaintiff's website. According to the Plaintiff, photographs, designations and descriptions of senior officials of the Plaintiff were completely copied by the Defendants in the said websites. Since the registrars of the said domain names and the persons who are operating these websites was not within the knowledge of the Plaintiff, the present John Doe suit was filed seeking details from the DNRs, Internet Service Providers (ISPs) and seeking blocking orders from the concerned Ministries.
5. Vide order dated 24th December, 2021 an injunction was granted in terms of prayers (i) and (ii) of the interim injunction application which reads as under:
"i. Pass an order of ex-parte ad-interim injunction restraining the Defendant Nos. 7 and 8, their owners, partners, proprietors, officers, servants, employees, and all others in capacity of principal or agent acting for and on their behalf, or anyone claiming through, by or under it, from using the website www.tylengene.com and/or any of Applicant's copyrighted material or any deceptive variant which is identical and/or similar to the Applicant's copyright in respect of domain name or by any other manner thereby amounting to passing off of Applicant's goodwill and reputation by claiming any association with the Applicant;
ii. Pass an order of ex-parte ad-interim injunction restraining the Defendant Nos. 9 to use the website www.tylliva.com (and such other websites/entities which are discovered during the course of the proceedings to have been engaging in infringing Applicant's copyright, passing off and violating Applicant's rights), their owners, partners, proprietors, officers, servants, employees, and all others in capacity of principal or agent acting for and on their behalf, or anyone claiming through, by or under it, from using Applicant's copyrighted material or any deceptive variant which is identical and/or similar to the Applicant's copyright in respect of domain name or by any other manner thereby amounting to passing off of Applicant's goodwill and reputation by claiming any association with the Applicant;"
6. Pursuant to the injunction order, which was granted, it is submitted by ld. Counsel for the Plaintiff that both the websites were blocked and the contents of the website have also been removed from the said websites. Godaddy has also suspended both t
The court affirmed that interim injunctions are appropriate to protect intellectual property rights when unknown defendants infringe copyright, thereby enabling further legal action.
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 court reinforced the necessity for swift measures against trademark infringement through domain name registration, emphasizing enforcement against fraudulent websites and the transparency of regi....
The case established the importance of protecting intellectual property rights and preventing trademark infringement, especially when there is a likelihood of irreparable injury to the rightful owner....
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.
Domain Name Registrars must comply with court orders and appoint Grievance Officers under IT Rules, 2021, or face potential legal actions for non-compliance.
The court held that a well-known trademark, like `TATA`, is entitled to protection against any unauthorized use that may deceive the public, confirming jurisdiction over foreign entities where online....
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.