Neutral Citation Number : 2023/DHC/001312

CS(COMM) 582/2022

Page 1 of 56

$~ (Original)

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Reserved on 17^th February 2023

Pronounced on 24^th February 2023

+

CS(COMM) 582/2022 & I.A. 13529/2022

BOLT TECHNOLOGY OU

..... Plaintiff

Through:

Ms.Swathi

Sukumar,

Mr.

Essenese Obhan, Ms.Ayesha Guhathakurta,

Mr.Pratyush Rao, Advs.

versus

UJOY TECHNOLOGY PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR.

..... Defendants

Through:

Mr. Chander Lall, Sr. Adv. with

Mr.Naman Maheshwari, Mr.Garv Malhotra,

Mr.Maneesh

Malhotra,

Ms.Snehal

Maheshwari, Ms.Ananya Chug, Mr.Eshan

A. Chaturvedi, Advs.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.HARI SHANKAR

JUDGEMENT

%

24.02.2023

IA 13529/2022 (under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC)

The Dispute

1.

Formerly known as Taxify OU, the plaintiff was incorporated in

2013 in Estonia as a taxi aggregator, to aggregate all taxies in Tallinn,

Estonia, Riga and Latvia on one platform. The plaintiff claims to have

conceived and adopted the brand ―BOLT‖ in 2018, and that the

expression signified speed as well as electricity. The plaintiff further

avers that, under the brands ―BOLT‖ and

, the plaintiff was

providing, worldwide, ride-hailing, food and grocery delivery, rental

Digitally Signed

By:KAMLA RAWAT

Signing Date:24.02.2023

17:14:55

Signature Not Verified

Neutral Citation Number : 2023/DHC/001312

CS(COMM) 582/2022

Page 2 of 56

of cars, e-bikes and scooters and EV (electric vehicle) charging

stations/docks. By dint of continuous use, it is asserted that the marks

―BOLT‖ and

have amassed considerable goodwill and reputation

and have become exclusively associated with the products and

services of the plaintiff. The

mark, it is further asserted,

constitutes an ―original artistic work‖ within the meaning of Section

2(c)¹ of the Copyright Act, 1957, of which the plaintiff, as the creator,

is the owner and right holder.

2.

Admittedly, the plaintiff has no trademark registration in India,

though it has applied for registration of the trademark Bolt Charge in

Class 99 and of the

device mark in Classes 09, 12, 35, 36, 37 and

39. The said applications are pending, as on date, with the Registrar of

Trade Marks.

3.

No suit for infringement of trade mark can, therefore, lie at the

instance of the plaintiff against anyone in this country, including the

defendant. The tort with which the plaintiff charges the defendant is,

indeed, not infringement, but passing off. The plaintiff‘s case is that

the defendant, by using the mark

, is passing off its products and

services as those of the plaintiff, or deceiving the unwary consumer

into believing the existence of an association between the two.

4.

Predicated on the said allegation, the plaintiff seeks, by means

of the present suit, an injunction against the defendant from using the

1(c)“artistic work” means,–

(i)

a painting, a sculpture, a drawing (including a diagram, map, chart or plan), an engraving

or a photograph, whether or not any such work possesses artistic quality;

(ii)

a work of architecture; and

(iii)

any other work of artistic craftsmanship;

Digitally Signed

By:KAMLA RAWAT

Signing Date:24.02.2023

17:14:55

Signature Not Verified

Neutral Citation Number : 2023/DHC/001312

CS(COMM) 582/2022

Page 3 of 56

impugned

mark. The plaintiff has filed, with the plaint, I.A.

13529/2022 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil

Procedure, 1908 (CPC), seeking an interlocutory injunction

restraining the defendants and all others acting on their behalf from (i)

passing off their goods and services under the impugned ‗BOLT‘ and

marks as those of the plaintiff in relation to ―all kinds of

mobi