Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Del) 6583
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, J
SPORTA TECHNOLOGIES PVT LTD – Appellant
Versus
DREAM11 PRIME AND OTHERS – Respondent
CS(COMM) 448/2020
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Rohan Krishna Seth, Mr.Ritwik Marwaha
For the Respondents: Mr. Vikrant N. Goyal, Mr. Arun Kumar Yadav, Mr. Kunal Dixit, Mr. Prince Balyan, Ms. Sreeja Sengupta
In trademark infringement cases, a plaintiff can obtain a permanent injunction when defendants do not contest, confirming valid and exclusive trademark rights.
Headnote:(A) Trademarks Act, 1999 - Section 29 - Infringement of registered trademarks - Plaintiff, proprietor of DREAM11 trademarks, claimed infringement and sought injunction against rogue websites using its trademarks - Ex-parte ad-interim injunction previously granted - Court held that Defendants’ use violated Plaintiffs’ exclusive rights, causing irreparable harm. (Paras 12, 18, 19)
(B) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order VIII Rule 10 - Procedure when party fails to present written statement - Court finds no contest from Defendants, ruling the suit capable of being decreed without trial. (Paras 14, 18)
Facts of the case:
Plaintiff, operating since 2012 under Dream11, filed the suit against numerous rogue websites infringing its trademarks, seeking restraining orders.
Findings of Court:
Defendants infringing trademarks caused harm to Plaintiffs, warranting a permanent injunction. No objections were raised to the plaint, leading to a decree in favor of the Plaintiff.
Issues: The primary issue was the infringement of the Plaintiff’s registered trademarks by Defendants' rogue websites.
Ratio Decidendi: With no response from Defendants and evidence affirming infringement, the Court ruled a permanent injunction was warranted under Order VIII Rule 10.
Result: Permanent injunction granted in favor of the Plaintiffs.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. plaintiff seeks injunction for trademark infringement. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. demonstrates service of process to all defendants. (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. court observes the harm caused by defendants' actions. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 16 , 17) |
| 4. ruling based on no contest from defendants necessitating judgment. (Para 14 , 18) |
| 5. court grants permanent injunction and addresses costs. (Para 19 , 20 , 22 , 23) |
ORDER
CS(COMM) 448/2020 I.A. 12256/2025 (Order XIIIA Rule 3 and 6 CPC ) I.A. 9344/2020 (Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 CPC )
1. The Plaintiff has filed the present suit seeking restraint against the infringement of Plaintiff’s registered trademarks DREAM11 CHAMPIONS, , , , , , (hereinafter, the ‘DREAM11 trademarks’), passing off, and other ancillary reliefs.
Case setup in the plaint
2. The relevant facts, as stated in the pleading, are as under:-
2.1 Plaintiff launched its popular fantasy sports platform under the brand ‘Dream11’ in the year 2012, and since then (and as on the date of filing of the present suit) it has been the official sponsor of 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, etc.
2.2 The Plaintiff’s Dream11 platform was started as a one-stop provider of a number of online fantasy sports events/ leagues, where a user would draft virtual teams based on real players of a professional sport. These virtual drafted teams get points based on the performance of the players in actual games and depending on the points scored by a user’s virtual team, they would then be rewarded monetarily.
2.3 It is stated that as on the date of filing of the present suit, the Plaintiff’s mobile and online platform had over nine (9) crore users playing fantasy cricket football, hockey, kabaddi, baseball, handball and basketball.
The said number has consistently increased since then.
2.4 The Plaintiff is the registered proprietor of the DREAM11 trademarks, with the earliest registration dating back to the year 2009. Additionally, the Plaintiff is also the registrant of the domain ‘dream11.com’, which domain has been registered since 17.03.2008. Details of the Plaintiffs’ DREAM11 trademarks registrations are mentioned at paragraph 9 of the plaint.
2.5 The Plaintiff instituted the present suit against rouge websites that were predominantly using the Plaintiff’s registered DREAM11 trademarks as part of their domain names and that appeared to have cropped up close on the heels of the Indian Premier League 2020 (IPL 2020).
Submissions on behalf of the Plaintiff
3. Learned counsel for the Plaintiff states that some of the rouge websites were copying the entire get-up and layout of the Plaintiff’s website (www.dream11.com) in order to deceive and lure customers where they were promoting fake and fraudulent lottery/lucky draw schemes and asking unwary customers to deposit money to claim prizes like cars, scooters, TVs and tablets, or being used for unlawful activities such as betting and gambling.
3.1 He states that among the several domains that were impleaded in the suit, there were some that were purchased and thereafter, parked by the Defendants for the purposes of domain squatting and to sell these domains to third parties at a premium.
3.2 He states that aggrieved by the acts of the Defendants, the Plaintiff filed the present suit and impleaded (i) the domains (being rogue entities), (ii) the Domain Name Registrars (that provided the infringing domains for registration), and (iii) Union of India (Department of Telecommunications, Ministry of Electronics and Infoirmation Technology (‘Meity’), and National Internet Exchange of India).
3.3 He states that since the Plaintiff was witnessing a proliferation of the rogue domains/websites, the Plaintiff also impleaded Defendant No. 65 as ‘John Doe’, for the purposes of seeking a dynamic injunction. He states that the present suit was originally file
