JUDGMENT

28.08.2017 SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)

I.A. 3017/2017 (on behalf of Plaintiff under Order VI rule 17 CPC) & I.A. 3019/2017 (on behalf of Plaintiff under Order I rule

10)

1. The plaintiff has filed the suit seeking a restraint on the defendant from unauthorized and illegal adoption and use of the plaintiff registered trademark T.I.M.E. and the registered domain name ‘TIME4EDUCATION.COM’ by defendant no. 1 by adopting, using and registering an identical and deceptively similar domain name i.e. www.timeseducation.co.

2. It is contended that the plaintiff is in the service of providing education and coaching classes. The plaintiff has a registered domain name ‘TIME4EDUCATION.COM’.

3. It is contended that someone had got registered a domain name ‘www.timeseducation.co’ which is deceptively similar to the domain name of the plaintiff.

4. It is contended that when the plaintiff filed the suit, plaintiff was not aware of the person who had got the said domain name registered. All that was available was a telephone number.

5. It is submitted by learned counsel for the plaintiff that the Cyber Cell of the Delhi Police has subsequently reported that the telephone number belongs to ‘Think and Learn Pvt. Ltd. (Byju's)’, the proposed defendant No. 5.

6. It is submitted that the proposed defendant is in the same field as that of the plaintiff i.e. providing coaching and educational services to students.

7. It is contended that the proposed defendant had got the domain name – ‘timeseducation.co’ registered so as to ride upon the reputation and goodwill of the plaintiff and take benefit there from.

8. It is in the above circumstances, plaintiff seeks impleadment of proposed defendant ‘Think and Learn Pvt. Ltd.’ (Byju's) and the consequential amendments to the Plaint.

9. Learned counsel submits that in view of the interim order dated 15.07.2016, whereby the use of the said domain name was restrained, the proposed defendant stopped using the domain name and recently the domain name was available for purchase and the plaintiff has now purchased the same.

10. It is contended that when the suit was filed, the plaintiff was not aware that it is the proposed defendant who was using the domain name ‘www.timeseducation.co’ and only on the report of the cyber cell , the name of the proposed defendant surfaced and as such the proposed defendant is a necessary and proper party.

11. Learned counsel appearing for the proposed defendant submits that there is nothing to associate the proposed defendant with the said domain name. He submits that though the phone number based on which the application has been filed does belong to the proposed defendant, however, prior to the acquisition of the said number, inquiries have revealed, that the number was owned by several other entities or persons.

12. He submits that nothing apart from the number associates the proposed defendant with the said domain name. He further submits that even as per the showing of the plaintiff, the domain name has now been purchased by the plaintiff and the cause of action does not survive any further.

13. The plaintiff has prima facie shown that the proposed defendant had an association with the impugned domain name ‘www.timeseducation.co’ through the telephone number, which admittedly belongs to the proposed defendant.

14. The defence of the defendant that the said telephone number was earlier belonged to other persons/entities or that there was no connection of the proposed defendant with the said domain are pleas on merit of the contention of the plaintiff, which are not required to be examined at this stage.

15. The merits of the claim of the plaintiff or the defence of the defendant have not to be considered at the time of considering the application for amendment.

16. In view of the admitted association of the proposed defendant with the telephone number connected with the impugned Domain name, the proposed defendant is clearly a necessary and proper party to the Suit and presence of the