Use Of Domain Name 'dream11.bet' Amounts To Infringement, Passing Off: Delhi HC Grants Permanent Injunction In Favour Of Dream11
The Delhi High Court recently passed a summary judgment in favour of the Dream11 parent company Sporta Technologies Private Limited against a person who was operating the domain name 'www.dream11.bet' allegedly as a gambling website.Justice Navin Chawla said the plaintiffs have been able to prove that they are the registered proprietor of the 'Dream11 Marks' and that the domain name adopted...
The Delhi High Court recently passed a summary judgment in favour of the Dream11 parent company Sporta Technologies Private Limited against a person who was operating the domain name 'www.dream11.bet' allegedly as a gambling website.
Justice Navin Chawla said the plaintiffs have been able to prove that they are the registered proprietor of the 'Dream11 Marks' and that the domain name adopted by the defendant is deceptively similar to that of the plaintiffs and is clearly intended to ride on the goodwill and reputation of their marks.
"The adoption of the domain name www.dream11.bet is a clear case of infringement of the marks of the plaintiffs and amounts to passing off the services of the defendant as that of the plaintiffs. The defendant not only intends to take unfair advantage of the marks of the plaintiffs and ride on the reputation of the plaintiffs' marks, but also deceive unwary consumer of their association with the plaintiffs. Such acts of the defendant would also lead to dilution of the mark of the plaintiffs," said the court.
Suit
Sporta Technologies in the suit filed in 2020 had sought a permanent injunction against the defendant from using 'Dream11' in the domain name or in any other manner which amounts to the infringement or passing of the plaintiff's trade marks.
The company runs Dream11, which is an online multi-player game where the participants draft virtual teams of real players of a professional sport and get points based on the performance of the players in actual games. The top teams of each contest are rewarded monetarily from a Prize Pool, where the amount won can be withdrawn by a participant from their verified Bank Account, according to the suit.
The court was told that in December 2019, they learnt about the domain name 'www.dream11.bet,' which was being operated by the defendant including as a YouTube Channel, containing match-prediction videos, touting their website to be a gambling website, offering contact details to enable users to obtain login credentials to place bets, using which credentials and upon payment of a sum of money, one could access the defendant's betting website. The website contained plaintiffs' 'Dream11' Trademarks.
Interim Relief
The high court on February 6 in 2020 had directed the domain name registrar GoDaddy to immediately disable and suspend the website 'www.dream11.bet.' A direction was also issued to YouTube to "suspend/remove/take down" the channel 'Dream11.bet' from its platform.
Since the defendant failed to file its written statement, its right to file the same was closed by the Joint Registrar (Judicial) in July 2022. The defendant was proceeded against ex-parte.
Contentions of the plaintiffs
The plaintiffs argued that the adoption of the 'Dream11 Marks' by the defendant as a part of their trade name and domain name was mala fide and was intended to trade upon the reputation and goodwill of the plaintiffs, amounting to infringement and passing off.
They argued that the adoption of their trademarks by the defendant for the activities of betting and gambling was illegal under the Public Gambling Act, 1867. It was further submitted various High Courts — Varun Gumber v. Union Territory of Chandigarh, 2017 SCC OnLine P&H 5372 and Gurdeep Singh Sachar v. Union of India and Others, 2019 SCC OnLine Bom 13059, have held that the business being carried out by Dream11 has an element of skill, and thus the platform is not illegal.
Ruling
The high court said that in Anugya Gupta v. Ajay Kumar and Another, 2022 SCC OnLine Del 1922, it has been held that the right of a proprietor in a domain name is entitled to equal protection, applying the principles of the trade mark law.
"The use of the same or similar domain name may lead to diversion of users, which could result from such users mistakenly accessing one domain name instead of another. Therefore, a domain name may have all the characteristics of a trade mark and could found an action for passing off," it added, while quoting from the judgment.
The court said the defendant has chosen neither to file its written statements nor to enter appearance in the suit to defend the same.
"In my opinion, therefore, this is a fit case where a Summary Judgment in terms of Order XIII-A of the CPC, as applicable to commercial disputes of a specified value, read with Rule 27 of the IPD Rules deserves to be passed in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendant," said Justice Chawla.
Ruling that the plaintiffs have been able to make out a case, the court said, "the Suit is decreed in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendant in terms of prayers made in paragraph nos. 33 (A) and (B) of the plaint. The plaintiff is also held entitled to the costs of the Suit."
Case Title: Sporta Technologies Pvt. Ltd. and Another v. Virat Saxena
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1130
Click Here To Read/Download the Order