Delhi High Court Upholds Arbitrator's Refusal Of Injunction Against Use Of Tagline "Jeeto Har DinZo" By Winzo Games
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad has upheld the findings of the Arbitrator, who refused to grant an injunction restraining Winzo Games Private Limited (“Respondent”) from using the tagline “Jeeto Har DinZo” developed by Creativeland Advertising Private Limited (“Appellant”). Since there was no formal agreement fixing a price for the tagline and...
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad has upheld the findings of the Arbitrator, who refused to grant an injunction restraining Winzo Games Private Limited (“Respondent”) from using the tagline “Jeeto Har DinZo” developed by Creativeland Advertising Private Limited (“Appellant”). Since there was no formal agreement fixing a price for the tagline and no claim of copyright infringement, the Appellant's claim was based solely on an alleged breach of confidentiality. The court observed that its jurisdiction under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, was limited. It held that the view taken by the Arbitrator in the Section 17 application was not so erroneous so as to shock the conscience of the Court.
Brief Facts
The dispute arose from a commercial engagement between the Appellant, a creative agency specialising in brand campaigns, and the Respondent, an online gaming platform operator. On 11.10.2024, the Respondent initiated discussions with the Appellant, expressing interest in a brand campaign. The Appellant expressed its willingness to collaborate on the same day. The Appellant executed a Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA) with the Respondent on 08.11.2024.
The Appellant developed and presented three original campaign concepts, with the tagline “Jeeto Har DinZo”. These were presented in the First Pitch Deck. The Respondent acknowledged the Appellant's creative direction and stated that the tagline had the potential to resonate with the target audience. Based on this feedback, the Appellant presented a Second Pitch Deck. The Respondent suggested strategic modifications. To incorporate these suggestions, the Claimant developed and presented a Third Pitch Deck. The Respondent continued to express interest in the tagline and campaign structure.
On 31.01.2025, the Respondent informed the Claimant that it had incorporated the tagline into internal scripts. This led the Claimant to believe that the campaign was progressing to a formal engagement. On 04.02.2025, the Respondent unexpectedly terminated discussions. It offered Rs.10 lakhs as compensation for the tagline.
On 19.02.2025, the Appellant filed a petition under Section 9 of the Act, seeking an injunction to restrain the Respondent from using its confidential material, including the tagline. On 24.02.2025, the Court constituted an Arbitral Tribunal and converted the application into one under Section 17 of the Act.
The Appellant alleged a breach of confidentiality and unauthorised use of the tagline. The Sole Arbitrator ruled that there was no formal agreement between them apart from the NDA. Only proposals were exchanged; no price was determined for the tagline. Since the ownership of the creative material was disputed, the Arbitrator refused to grant an injunction.
The Appellant challenged the ad-interim order passed by the Arbitrator in the appeal under Section 37(2)(b) of the Act.
Contentions
Senior Counsel for the Appellant contended that the very purpose of the NDA was to protect the tagline created by the Appellant, as it constitutes the intellectual property of the Appellant. He stated that the correspondence between the parties indicated that the tagline "Jeeto Har DinZo" was created by the Appellant. He argued that the Respondent's actions amounted to passing off the Appellant's tagline. He also contended that the Respondent cannot justify its use of the tagline by offering damages to the Appellant.
Per contra, Senior Counsel for the Respondent contended that the tagline “Jeeto Har DinZo” is not the sole proprietary work of the Appellant. He asserted that the tagline “Khelo WinZo Jeeto Har DinZo” incorporates WinZo, which is the registered trademark of the Respondent. Therefore, the Appellant cannot claim exclusive rights over the phrase “Jeeto Har DinZo” or seek an injunction in this regard. He further contended that since the Appellant created a work product for the Respondent, it was only entitled to compensation for its services and could not claim ownership of the tagline.
Observations
The court noted that the Arbitrator concluded that the NDA revealed that the confidential agreement itself mentioned the recovery of the actual or exaggerated damages in case of breach of the agreement. The Arbitrator found that Clause 8 of the NDA did not restrict either party from engaging another agency to develop products and concepts. Based on this clause, the Arbitrator concluded that the agreement, which was intended to be entered into but had not yet been formalized in writing, was inherently determinable. The Arbitrator observed that since there was no formal agreement between the parties and no specific amount was fixed for the tagline, and as the Appellant had not alleged copyright infringement but instead based its claim on a violation of the NDA, the Appellant was not entitled to injunctive relief.
The court reiterated that its jurisdiction under Section 37 of the Act is even narrower than the jurisdiction under Section 34. It relied upon the case of World Window Infrastructure (P) Ltd. v. Central Warehousing Corpn. (2021), which held that “The scope of interference, in appeal, against orders passed by arbitrators on applications under Section 17 of the 1996 Act is limited.” The court reiterated that while exercising jurisdiction under Section 34, it can only interfere with the awards that shock the conscience of the Court. The court opined that the view taken by the Arbitrator under the Section 17 application was not so erroneous so as to shock the conscience of the Court. Thus, it upheld the finding of the Arbitrator.
The court dismissed the appeal. It allowed the Appellant to contest the registration of the tagline “Jeeto Har DinZo” before the trademark authorities.
Case Title: CREATIVELAND ADVERTISING PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. WINZO GAMES PRIVATE LIMITED
Case No.: ARB. A. (COMM.) 17/2025, I.A. 6222/2025
For Winzo Games: Mr. Abhishek Malhotra, Senior Advocate with Ms. Srishti Gupta, Mr. Kumarjeet Ray and Ms. Anukriti Trivedi, Advocates.
For Creativeland Advertising: Mr. Chander M. Lall, Sr. Advocate with Mr Nishad Nadkarni, Mr Nirupam Lodha, Ms Khushboo Jhunjhunwala, Mr Kshitij Parashar, Mr Gautam Wadhwa, Ms Annanya Mehan Advocates.
Date of Judgment: 18.03.2025
