In CS(COMM) 59/2020-DEL HC- Delhi HC grants relief to Dream11 in trademark infringement suit after considering that adoption of domain name “dream11.bet” is clear case of infringement and amounts to passing off
Justice Navin Chawla [25-11-2022]

Read Order: SPORTA TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD. & ANR v. VIRAT SAXENA 

LE Correspondent

New Delhi, November 29, 2022: The Delhi High Court has granted permanent injunction in favour of DREAM11 while noting that the domain name adopted by the defendant, i.e. “www.dream11.bet” is deceptively similar to that of the plaintiffs and is clearly intended to ride on the goodwill and reputation of the marks of the plaintiffs.

Justice Navin Chawla decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant by observing that the  defendant not only intended  to take unfair advantage of the marks of the plaintiffs but also to deceive unwary consumers of their association with the plaintiffs. 

The present suit was preferred for  seeking a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendant from using the mark ‘Dream11’ or any deceptively similar variant thereof, as a trade mark, trade name or domain name www.dream11.bet or on social media, email addresses or in any other manner, which amounts to the infringement of and/or passing off the plaintiffs’ trade marks as listed in the plaint, such as ‘Dream11///’ (‘Dream11 Marks’).

Factual matrix of the case was such that the first  plaintiff,  a private limited company,  underwent a change of name from ‘Adwaiya Realtors Private Limited’ to ‘Dream11 Fantasy Private Limited’ in the year 2013. The second plaintiff IS a company incorporated under the laws of the State of Delaware, the United States of America. The first plaintiff  was a wholly-owned subsidiary of the second plaintiff. 

The plaintiffs’ fantasy sports platform under the trade mark/trade name ‘Dream11’ (adopted in the year 2012), was an online multiplayer game where the participants draft imaginary and virtual teams of real players of a professional sport.

The plaintiffs signed a Central Sponsorship contract with the Board of Cricket Control of India for the IPL for four years, starting in the year 2019. The plaintiffs also have a long-term ‘Official Fantasy Sports Provider’ deal with the ICC for all the tournaments, which were particularly widespread during the ICC Men’s Cricket World Cup 2019.For both tournaments, the plaintiffs organised daily contests and season-long fantasy games for fan engagement utilizing their services bearing the ‘Dream11 Marks’.

 The first plaintiff  was  the registered proprietor of trademarks, which were  accorded protection under the provisions of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.

It  was the case of the plaintiffs that in 2019, the plaintiffs learnt of the domain name www.dream11.bet being operated by the defendant as also a YouTube Channel, which contained match-prediction videos and two videos which openly touted the website with the domain name www.dream11.bet to be a gambling website, and offered phone numbers and contact details in order to enable users to obtain the necessary login credentials to place bets.

Complaining the acts of the defendant amounted to infringement of the plaintiffs’ trade marks as also passing off, the plaintiffs filed the present suit inter-alia praying for a decree of permanent injunction against the defendant.

This Court through its order directed GoDaddy to immediately disable and suspend the website www.dream11.bet. A direction was also issued to YouTube LLC to suspend/remove/take down the channel ‘Dream11.bet’ from its platform.

After considering the submissions, the Court noted that the adoption of the domain name www.dream11.bet was 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 intended  to take unfair advantage of the marks of the plaintiffs and ride on the reputation of the plaintiffs’ marks, but also to deceive unwary consumers of their association with the plaintiffs. Such acts of the defendant would also lead to dilution of the mark of the plaintiffs”, the Bench held.

At this stage, the Bench referred to the judgment in Anugya Gupta v. Ajay Kumar and Anr.

It was further noted that the defendant had chosen neither to file its written statements nor to enter an appearance in the suit to defend the same. Hence the Bench said, “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.”

In view of such observations, the suit was decreed in favor of the plaintiff.