IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Navin Chawla, J.
Sporta Technologies Pvt. Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
Virat Saxena - Respondent
CS(COMM) 59 of 2020 & I.A. 1688 of 2020
Decided On : 25-11-2022
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. establishment and ownership of the dream11 marks. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 2. allegations of trademark infringement and passing off. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 3. court proceedings and defendant's failure to participate. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 4. plaintiff's legal arguments regarding infringement. (Para 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 5. court's analysis of trademark rights and passing off. (Para 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26) |
| 6. ruling in favor of plaintiffs and granting relief. (Para 27 , 28 , 29) |
JUDGMENT
Navin Chawla, J.
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 The top teams of each contest are rewarded monetarily from a Prize Pool, where the amount won can be withdrawn by a participant from their verified Bank Account, subject to the submission of their Permanent Account Number and its due verification.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
![]() | ||||
![]() | ||||
![]() | ||||
![]() | ||||
![]() |
![]() | ||||
![]() |
The court affirmed the rights of trademark owners against unauthorized use, ruling that failure to defend constitutes grounds for summary judgment.
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, ....
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....
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....
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.