Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
AMIT BANSAL, J
WINZO GAMES PRIVATE LIMITED – Appellant
Versus
GOOGLE LLC – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. plaintiff seeks injunction against defendants for application warning. (Para 1 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. arguments presented by both parties regarding the warning. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 3. warning serves as a protective measure under applicable it rules. (Para 9 , 10 , 12 , 13 , 15) |
| 4. court finds no trademark infringement or disparagement. (Para 16 , 19 , 20) |
| 5. application dismissed based on analysis of claims. (Para 22 , 25 , 26) |
JUDGMENT
AMIT BANSAL, J. (Oral)
I.A. 4439/2022 (O-XXXIX R-1 & 2 of the CPC)
1. The present application has been filed on behalf of the plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) seeking to restrain the defendants from displaying any warning against the use of the gaming platform/application ‘WinZO Games’ of the plaintiff on theAndroid Operating System/s.
2. Notice was issued in the application on 22nd March, 2022 and reply thereto has subsequently been filed on behalf of the defendant no.1. Plaintiff has also filed a rejoinder to the reply filed by the defendant no.1.
3. Arguments in the application were heard on 8th February, 2022 and both sides have filed a brief note of their submissions.
FACTUALMATRIX
4. The case set up by
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
