Delhi High Court Rules In Favour Of 'Dream 11' In Trademark Infringement Suit Against Replica Website

The Delhi High Court has recently ruled in favour of fantasy sports platform “Dream 11” in a trademark and copyright infringement suit against a “replica website” misleading the public by using the former's registered trademark, logo and tagline.

Justice Amit Bansal permanently injuncted the defendant website from using Dream 11's trademark, logo or tagline or any deceptively similar variant.

The Court also directed the defendant website (www.dream11com.in) to use a layout or user-interface which amounts to infringement of Dream 11's copyright vested in the layout or user-interface of its website 'www.dream11.com'.

Furthermore, it directed GoDaddy.com LLC to transfer the domain name 'www.dream11com.in' to Sporta Technologies, which owns Dream 11 platform.

The suit was filed by Sporta Technologies Pvt. Ltd. and Dream Sports Inc. against operator of the impugned website which was offering fantasy sports services identical to those provided by the former, thereby misleading the public.

The plaintiffs submitted that in the impugned website, the 'Register Account' link and the hyperlinks in the 'How to Play on Dream11 App' FAQ section redirected users to “www.gugobet.com” which actively promoted betting and gambling activities.

It was submitted that the 'Gugobet Sponsor' section claimed to be “one of the biggest global sports betting websites, founded in the UK since 2006.”

By creating a mirror website, the plaintiffs claimed, the defendant website was diverting users of Dream11 platform to a site that offered illegal betting and gambling services in India.

In September last year, the Court had granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction against the defendant website and ordered suspension of the domain 'dream11com.in'.

While granting permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiffs, the Court said that the plaintiffs were able to prove that they were the registered proprietors of the trademarks “DREAM11”.

Noting that the plaintiffs also have a copyright over the UI of their website “www.dream11.com”, the Court said:

“The impugned mark, “DREAM11”, is clearly used as the domain name of the defendant no.1's website and its logo. Further, the tagline “DREAM BIG” is reproduced in the same manner on the website of the defendant no.1. The description of the defendant no.1's platform as contained on its website reveals that its services are identical to those of the plaintiffs,” the Court said.

It added that the defendant website's operator had taken unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of the plaintiffs' trademark and had also deceived unwary consumers of their association with the plaintiffs by dishonestly adopting the plaintiffs' registered marks without any plausible explanation. 

Therefore, the plaintiffs have established a case of passing off as well.

Title: SPORTA TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD., AND ANR. v. HONG YI F35 AND OTHERS

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1168

Click here to read order