Delhi High Court Passes John Doe Order Against Rogue Websites Infringing Online Gaming Company Baazi Group's Trademark

The rogue websites are operating under different names including baaziadda, baazi247, baazi365 and lotusbaazi.

Moonshine Technology Pvt Ltd (plaintiff) stated that the Baazi group has registered various trademarks including BAAZI, BAAZI GAMES, BAAZI MOBILE GAMING and POKERBAAZI. Moonshine stated that it has been using the Baazi mark since 2014.

Moonshine stated that it is well-known for its products and services under the brand and trademarks of BAAZI and that it has acquired immense goodwill, reputation and popularity amongst customers, members in trade and public at large. It stated that it has over 3.5 lakh monthly active users across its different verticals and that its PokerBaazi brand has received immense engagement on social media with over 2 million subscribers on its YouTube channel and over 4 lakh followers on the Meta platforms.

Moonshine submitted that unknown defendants (defendant nos. 1 to 5) have been committing offence of cyber-squatting, where the users are redirected to rogue websites which offer illegal gambling and betting services. It stated that in collusion with the Domain Name Registrants (defendant nos. 6 to 8), the unknown/registrant defendants are offering infringing domains for sale, resale or at a premium pricing and reaping undue profits.

It is stated that the rogue websites are infringing its registered trademarks and hosting illegal gambling and casino websites under the infringing domain name/branding.

It is stated that the defendants registered the infringing domains with mala fide intent to deceive users about their association with Moonshine. It is stated that the infringing websites create a false sense of legitimacy, causing harm to its well-established brand.

Moonshine submitted that the unauthorized adoption and illegal use of its trademarks is patently illegal, unfair and amounts to unfair business practices.

It further stated that the webpage of GoDaddy (defendant no. 6), is offering for sale domain names similar to it. It pointed out that GoDaddy is the same Domain Name Registrant, who has registered its domain name.

Considering the facts of the case, Justice Mini Pushkarna was of the view that a prima facie case for grant of ex-parte ad-interim injunction was made out. The Court stated that the balance of convenience lies with Moonshine and that irreparable harm would be caused if an interim injunction is not granted.

The Court thus restrained unknown defendants (defendants no. 1 to 5) from accessing, using, modifying or transferring the infringing domain names.

It further ordered GoDaddy and other Domain Name Registrants (defendant nos. 6 to 8) to suspend the access and use of the infringing domain names by their registrants. It directed them to disclose the details of the registrants of the infringing domain names.

Case title: Moonshine Technology Private Limited vs. Ashok Kumar & Ors

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 221

Counsels for Plaintiff: Mr. Raj Shekhar Rao, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Subhash Bhutoria, Ms. Anuja Negi, Ms. Ayesha Khan and Ms. Sanjana Bishnoi