SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Online)(Del) 17129

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Amit Bansal, J
WINZO GAMES PRIVATE LIMITED – Appellant
Versus
GOOGLE LLC – Respondent
CS(COMM) 176/2022



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.Abhishek Malhotra, Ms.Atmja Tripathy
For the Respondents: Mr.Arun Kathpalia, Ms. Mamta Rani Jha, Mr.Rohan Ahuja, Ms.Shrutima Ehersa, Mr.Vatsalya Vishal, Ms.Amishi Sodani

Trademarks cannot be deemed infringed where a third party uses a mark for disclaimers without promoting goods, serving merely to protect users from potential risks.

Headnote:(A) Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 - Trademarks Act, 1999 - Sections 29 - Infringement of trademarks claims arising from a warning issued by the defendants against the plaintiff’s gaming application, found to be non-discriminatory and a security feature for users - The court highlighted that the warning did not constitute disparagement or infringe the plaintiff's trademarks; noted the standard industry practice in placing such warnings for user safety. (Paras 12-19)

(B) Trademark Law - Conditions for infringement under Section 29, specifically that for a trademark to be infringed, it must be used in the course of trade, which the defendants did not engage in. (Paras 16-17)

Facts of the case:
The plaintiff operates a gaming platform and alleges that the defendant displayed a warning about its application that misleadingly insinuates harm, which led to the filing of this suit.

Findings of Court:
The defendants' warning does not infringe the plaintiff's trademark and it is not discriminatory, rather it is a protective measure for users.

Issues: Whether the warning constitutes trademark infringement or disparagement and if it induces breach of contract.

Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that the defendants’ warning does not constitute trademark use in trade or disparagement as there is no active comparison involved. The warning operates as a protective measure for all third-party applications.

Result: Application dismissed.

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 the plaintiff is as under:

4.1 The plaintiff is a digital gaming and technology company that operates an online digital gaming platform/application under the marks ‘WinZO’/ ‘WinZO Games’.

4.2 The plaintiff has registrations/has applied for registrations in respect of the marks WinZO’ and ‘WinZO Games’ in Classes 38, 41 and 42, details of which are given in paragraph 5 of the plaint.

4.3 The plaintiff enjoys considerable goodwill and reputation associated with its trademarks ‘WinZO’/ ‘WinZO Games’.

4.4 The aforesaid application under the marks ‘WinZO’/ ‘WinZO Games’ of the plaintiff was introduced in February, 2017 and offers over seventy games in five formats to its users, in over twelve regional languages.

4.5 The application of the plaintiff was available on the Google Playstore until it was converted by the plaintiff to a paid gaming platform. Thereafter, the plaintiff had to remove its application from the Google Playstore.

4.6 The plaintiff owns and operates the website ‘www.winzogames.com/’ through which consumers can download the gaming application of the plaintiff. The said website can be accessed by searching for the keywords ‘WinZO Games’ on any search engine.

4.7 In November, 2021, the plaintiff was informed of the defendants displaying a disclaimer/warning to users upon an attempted download of the plaintiff’s application. The text of the warning is as under:

“This type of file may harm your device. Do you want to keep WinZO.apk anyway?”

5. Accordingly, the present suit was filed seeking a decree of permanent injunction along with other ancillary reliefs.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALFOFTHE COUNSELS

6. Counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiff makes the following submissions:

i. The warning placed by the defendants in relation to the plaintiff’s services under the ‘WinZO’/ ‘WinZO Games’ marks is devoid of any legal justification.

ii. The aforesaid warning goes beyond the mandate of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 (IT Rules 2021).

iii. The warning placed by the defendants amounts to infringement/tarnishment of the plaintiff’s trademarks.

iv. The warning of the defendants disparages the plaintiff’s digital gaming services under the ‘WinZO’/ ‘WinZO Games’ marks

v. The defendants are inducing breach of contract between the plaintiff and its users by displaying the aforesaid warning.

7. Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the defendants makes the following submissions:

i. The warning is being used on a non-discriminatory basis in respect of all third-party APK format files/applications, which can be downloaded from the internet.

ii. Several other browsers also display such warning while downloading other third-party APK format files/applications and therefore, the same constitutes an industry practice.

ii

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top