$~15 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS(COMM) 13/2024 WINZO GAMES PRIVATE LIMITED .....Plaintiff Through: Ms. Raghavi Shukla, Adv.

versus HTTPS//WWW.WINZOGOLD.ORG/ AND ORS......Defendants Through: Ms. Aishwarya Kane, Mr. Yash Raj & Mr. Shivansh Tiwari, Advs. for D-

39 Ms. Nidhi Raman, CGSC with Mr. Mr. Om Ram & Mr. Arnav Mittal Advs. for D- 72 & 73.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA

O R D E R

% 05.12.2025

1. The present suit has been filed seeking permanent, mandatory and dynamic injunction restraining the defendants from infringement, passing off, dilution, tarnishment of Plaintiff‟s trademarks and other ancillary reliefs.

Factual Matrix

2. The case set up in the plaint is as under:

3. The Plaintiff is a digital gaming and technology company established in 2016, which operates as an online skill-based digital gaming platform under its registered trade marks and brand name WinZO/WINZO [„Plaintiff‟s mark‟].

4. The Plaintiff introduced apps under the said marks in February 2017, and currently offers more than 100 games in 6 formats to users in more than

12 regional languages.

5. It is stated to be a pioneer in the online gaming industry, providing a platform where users can play games and win prizes. Currently, it has more than 175 million users with a strong foothold across India and is the biggest social gaming app in India.

6. Details of the Plaintiff‟s trademark registrations have been set out in paragraph „9‟ of the plaint. Details of the Plaintiff‟s registered domain names have been set out in paragraph „18‟ of the plaint.

7. Owing to the extensive use and goodwill, the Plaintiff‟s annual revenue for the financial year 2022-2023 was Rs.673.93 crores.

About the Defendants

8. Defendant Nos. 1 to 10 are websites engaged in the business of broadcasting/relaying/communicating unlicensed and pirated content, using the Plaintiff‟s marks as a part of their domain name.

9. Defendant Nos. 11 to 23 operate online domains that offer mobile applications with the .apk extension. The users are directed to these applications from the Defendants‟ websites, which thereafter initiates a download on the user‟s device; this allows users to access the Defendants‟ services through the application-based user interface. These Defendants are using deceptively similar/identical marks to those of the Plaintiff‟s marks for their apps and causing confusion in the market.

10. Defendant Nos. 24 to 38 are social media pages/handles on various social media platforms, including Instagram and Facebook. The Defendants are exploiting the Plaintiff‟s marks on social media to lure users and redirect them to other websites using the Plaintiff‟s mark.

11. Defendant Nos. 1 to 38 will hereafter be referred to as the „infringing Defendants‟.

12. Defendant Nos. 39 to 50 are the Domain Name Registrars [„DNRs‟], who are the registrars of the domains for the infringing websites and .apk sites.

13. Defendant Nos. 51 to 71 are Internet Service Providers [„ISPs‟] which provide access to users of these websites through the medium of the internet. 14. Defendant Nos. 72 and 73 are Union of India represented through the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology [„MeitY‟] and Department of Telecommunications [„DoT‟].

15. Defendant No. 74 has been arrayed as unknown person/John Doe.

Submissions on behalf of the Parties

16. Learned counsel for the Plaintiff states that the last amended memo of parties on record is dated 06.09.2024.

17. She states that infringing Defendants are Defendant Nos.1 to 38 and Defendant Nos. 39 to 73 are proforma defendants who were impleaded to ensure due compliance with the directions issued by this Court.

18. She states that the injunction order passed in these proceedings is dated 08.01.2024, and it has been duly implemented by the proforma Defendants.

19. She states that after the passing of the order dated 08.01.2024, no further infringing websites have been identified by the Plaintiff.

20. She states that Defendant Nos. 1 to 38 have b