Delhi High Court Protects Dream 11's Trademark From Unknown Entities, Awards ₹1 Lakh Cost

The unknown (John Doe) defendants (defendant no.1) is the operator of the website 'www.dream11lotery.com', which the plaintiff said is essentially a replica of the plaintiffs' official website 'www.dream11.com'. The plaintiff had sought a permanent injunction against infringement of its trademark, copyright and passing off against the defendants. On January 8, the High Court had passed an interim injunction restraining the defendants from using the plaintiff's mark. It had then also directed the Department of Telecommunications and the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology to issue directions to internet service providers to suspend access to the infringing website.

Thereafter on November 4 a single judge bench of Justice Mini Pushkarna in its order said, "On a perusal of the submissions and the documents placed on record, it is evident that the plaintiffs are the registered proprietor of the trademark “DREAM 11”. The documents on record clearly manifest that the look and feel of the defendant no.1's website, is identical to the plaintiffs' website. The mala fide of defendant no.1 is apparent from a perusal of the impugned website, the contents of which are a replica of the plaintiffs‟ website. The defendant no.1 has replicated the contents, color scheme, look and feel, and the "Dream 11" trademarks from the plaintiffs‟ website". 

The high court further noted that the defendant no.1 did not file a written statement despite the lapse of statutory period.

"This Court further notes that the defendant no.1, despite service has failed to contest the case by not filing a written statement and no plausible defense has been taken by defendant no.1," it noted. 

The Court stated that since no written statement was filed by the defendants, it can exercise its power under Order VIII Rule 10 CPC. The provision empowers the Court to pronounce a judgment when any party fails to file a written statement within the required time.

It also stated it was not necessary for the case to be sent to trial. It remarked, “This Court notes that no useful purpose shall be served in putting the matter to trial as no defense has come forward on behalf of defendant no.1.”

The Court proceeded ex-parte in the case. It referred to the of Cross Fit LLC versus RTB Gym and Fitness Centre, where the Supreme Court opined that the case did not require any ex parte evidence as the defendant did not appear and did not file a written statement.

It further observed that the infringement by defendant no.1 shows that they are trying to "confuse and mislead" the general public into believing that there is a nexus between plaintiffs and defendants.

"Hence, there is likelihood that the present and future members of the relevant class of consumers, will be misled that the defendant no.1 is associated/affiliated with the plaintiffs and the services provided by them are in furtherance of that of the plaintiffs," it added. 

Decreeing the suit as per the reliefs sought, the high court awarded Nominal cost of Rs. 1 lakh to the plaintiff to be paid by defendant no.1, within eight weeks from the date of the order. 

Case title: Sporta Technologies Pvt Ltd And Anr. vs. John Doe And Ors.