Delhi High Court Issues Permanent Injunction Against Unauthorized Use of ‘DREAM11’ Trademarks, Citing Tarnished Goodwill Due to Gambling Site

Court’s Decision
The Delhi High Court decreed in favor of the plaintiffs, Sporta Technologies Pvt. Ltd., restraining the defendants from infringing the plaintiffs’ ‘DREAM11’ trademark and copyright. The court found a clear case of trademark infringement and passing off, ordering a permanent injunction against the use of the ‘DREAM11’ marks and the transfer of the infringing domain ‘dream11com.in’ to the plaintiffs.

Facts
The plaintiffs operate the ‘DREAM11′ fantasy sports platform, known for its immense reputation and investments, with registered trademarks in India. Defendant no.1 replicated the plaintiffs’ website and utilized their ‘DREAM11′ trademarks and logos without authorization. The defendant’s website diverted users to a betting platform, tarnishing the plaintiffs’ goodwill.

Issues

• Whether the defendants’ use of the ‘DREAM11’ trademarks and logos constituted infringement.
• Whether the defendants were passing off their services as those of the plaintiffs.
• Whether the court should issue a permanent injunction and order the transfer of the infringing domain.

Petitioner’s Arguments
The plaintiffs argued that defendant no.1 was infringing their registered trademarks by replicating their website and misusing their marks. The plaintiffs presented evidence of the similarities between the two websites and argued that the defendants were misleading the public by passing off their services as those of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs sought a permanent injunction, citing past court orders protecting their trademarks.

Respondent’s Arguments
The defendants did not appear before the court or file any written statements to contest the suit. Despite being served, they failed to defend themselves or provide any explanation for their actions.

Analysis of the Law
The court analyzed the provisions of trademark law and the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. It found that the plaintiffs had successfully proven ownership of the ‘DREAM11’ trademarks and the copyright over their website’s user interface. The court referenced Order VIII Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code, which allows for a decree when the defendants fail to contest the suit.

Precedent Analysis
The court relied on its previous rulings, including Satya Infrastructure Ltd. vs. Satya Infra & Estates Pvt. Ltd., to conclude that the plaintiffs need not lead evidence in uncontested suits. It also referred to past orders protecting the plaintiffs’ rights in the ‘DREAM11’ marks.

Court’s Reasoning
The court observed that the defendants had copied the plaintiffs’ trademarks, logos, and website layout to mislead users. By diverting users to a gambling site, the defendants had tarnished the plaintiffs’ goodwill. The court held that the defendants had no defense to contest the suit, as they failed to appear despite being served.

Conclusion
The court decreed a permanent injunction against the defendants, restraining them from using the ‘DREAM11’ trademarks and logos. It also ordered the transfer of the infringing domain to the plaintiffs and awarded actual costs to the plaintiffs, with directions to file a bill of costs.

Implications
The ruling reinforces the protection of intellectual property rights, particularly in cases involving trademarks and online platforms. The court’s decision ensures that unauthorized use of registered marks and website layouts will not be tolerated, especially when it misleads consumers and harms the reputation of established businesses. This judgment also underscores the importance of contesting legal proceedings, as failure to do so can result in unfavorable outcomes.

Also Read – Supreme Court’s Comprehensive Review of Child Marriage Prevention in India: Criticizes Poor Enforcement, Calls for Strengthened CMPO Appointments and Comprehensive Awareness Campaigns