Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(Del) 32796
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Mini Pushkarna, J
SPORTA TECHNOLOGIES PVT LTD AND ANR – Appellant
Versus
ADITYA YADAV AND ORS – Respondent
CS(COMM) 22/2024
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Rohan Kumar Seth, Shilpi Sinha
For the Respondents: None
Under Order VIII Rule 10 of the CPC, a court may pronounce judgment against a defendant who fails to file a written statement if the plaint and accompanying documents provide sufficient, unimpeachable evidence to establish the claim, thereby avoiding unnecessary trial and ex parte evidence proceedings.
Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order VIII Rule 10 - Commercial Courts Act, 2015 - Suit for permanent injunction against trademark and copyright infringement - Defendant failing to file written statement within statutory period - Court's power to pronounce judgment against defendant without trial - Principle that court time should not be wasted in recording ex parte evidence when plaint and documents are sufficient and unimpeachable.
Facts of the case:
The plaintiffs, proprietors of the registered trademark 'DREAM11', filed for a permanent injunction against the defendants for using the impugned sub-domain 'dream11.hmriworld.com'. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants were using their trademark and copyrighted material to divert traffic, causing initial interest confusion. Despite service, the defendants failed to file a written statement, leading the court to proceed ex parte.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the documents on record, including trademark registration certificates, were unimpeachable evidence of the plaintiffs' rights. Invoking Order VIII Rule 10, the court held that since the defendant had failed to contest the suit, no trial or ex parte evidence was required. The court granted the permanent injunction and imposed costs of ₹1,00,000.
Issues: Whether the court can decree a suit under Order VIII Rule 10 CPC in light of the defendant's failure to file a written statement and whether the plaintiffs established a prima facie case of trademark infringement and passing off.
Ratio Decidendi: Where the material before the court is sufficient to establish a claim and the defendant exhibits dilatory tactics by failing to file a written statement, the court is empowered to skip ex parte evidence and pronounce judgment to achieve the objective of expeditious justice.
Result: Suit decreed in favour of the plaintiffs.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. nature of the suit and the claim regarding trademark infringement. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. procedural history, interim order, and the consequence of failure to file written statement. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. principle of avoiding unnecessary trial when defendants are ex parte. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 4. courts' discretion to use order viii rule 10 to curtail dilatory tactics. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 5. final decree and imposition of costs. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19) |
MINI PUSHKARNA, J (ORAL)
1. The present suit has been filed for permanent injunction restraining infringement of registered trademarks, passing off, infringement of copyright, rendition of accounts, damages and delivery up.
2. The case, as canvassed by the plaintiffs, is as follows:
2.1 The present suit has been filed by the plaintiffs in relation to their registered trademarks as mentioned below:
| S. No. | Trademark | Number | Classes | Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. | DREAM11 | 3802186 | 9, 16, 35, 41, 42 | 11th April 2018 |
| 2. | DREAM11 | 3660715 | 9, 16, 35, 41, 42 | 21st October 2017 |
| 3. | DREAM11 | 3660717 | 9, 16, 35, 41, 42 | 21st October 2017 |
| 4. | DREAM11 | 3660851 | 9, 16, 35, 41, 42 | 22nd October 2017 |
| 5. | DREAM11 | 3660718 | 9, 16, 35, 41, 42 | 21st October 2017 |
| 6. | DREAM11 | 3660720 | 9, 16, 35, 41, 42 | 21st October 2017 |
| 7. | D | 3802184 | 9, 16, 35, 41, 42 | 11th April 2018 |
| 8. | D DREAM11 | 3802185 | 9, 16, 35, 41, 42 | 11th April 2018 |
| S. No. | Trademark | Number | Class | Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. | DREAM11 | 4863621 | 9, 16, 18, 28, 35, 38, 42 & 45 | 25th September 2019 |
| 2. | DREAM11 | 1823011 | 38 | 28th May, 2009 |
| 3. | DREAM11 | 1823015 | 41 | 28th May, 2009 |
2.2 The defendant no. 1 is the proprietor of the domain hmriworld.com and the sub domain ‘dream11.hmriworld.com’ (impugned sub-domain). The present suit has been filed on account of adoption and use of the mark 'Dream 11' as a part of its impugned sub-domain by the defendant no. 1, which amounts to infringement and passing off of the plaintiffs' Dream 11 trademarks.
2.3 The defendant no.2 is the Domain Name Registrar (“DNR”) of the defendant no. 1's domain 'hmriworld.com'.
2.4 Defendant no. 3 is the Department of Telecommunications (“DoT”) and defendant no. 4 is the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (“MeitY”), who have been impleaded as defendants for the limited purpose of ensuring compliance with the orders of this Court.
2.5 Plaintiff no. 1 was incorporated with a view to serve as a one stop provider of a number of online fantasy sport leagues. A fantasy sport league is an online multi-player game where participants draft virtual teams of real players of a professional sport. These virtual drafted teams get points based on the performance of the players in actual games. Each player playing on the fantasy sports platform has to create a team with a maximum budget of 100 credits. The team then earns points based on real life matches and then the team competes with other such teams in the various contests offered by the plaintiffs on the platform. For each real-life match, there are multiple contests which a fantasy player can join, and each contest has an entry fee. The top teams of each contest are then rewarded monetarily. The amount earned is credited to the fantasy player's bank account upon his/her withdrawal request.
2.6 The plaintiffs launched its hugely popular fantasy sports platform under the trademark Dream11 in 2012. Thereafter, and until the present date, the plaintiffs have been the official fantasy sports partner of the International Council of Cricket (ICC), The Campeonato Nacional de Liga de Premiera Division (La Liga), Vivo Indian Premier League (IPL), KFC Big Bash League (BBL), Hero Caribbean Premier League (CPL) T20, National Basketball Association (NBA), Vivo Pro Kabaddi League (PKL), International Hockey Federation (FIH), Hero Indian Super League (ISL) and T20 Mumbai. The plaintiff has also acquired Official partner rights of Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI), international and domestic matches since 2019.
2.7 The popularity of the fantasy sports play
