Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 16th October, 2024
SPORTA TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD., AND ANR. .....Plaintiffs
Through: Mr. Rohan Krishna Seth, Ms. Shilpi Sinha and Ms Aiswarya
Debadarshini, Advocates
Through: Ms Surabhi Pandey, Ms. R. Ramya and Ms Rimjhim Tiwari, Advocates for D-2
JUDGMENT
1. The present suit has been filed seeking relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from infringing the trademark of the plaintiffs, passing off their goods and services as that of the plaintiffs and other ancillary reliefs.
PLEADINGS IN THE PLAINT
2. Plaintiff no.1-Sporta Technologies Pvt. Ltd. is a company incorporated in 2007 under the laws of India. Plaintiff no.2-Dream Sports Inc. is incorporated under the laws of Delaware, USA, and is the holding company of the plaintiff no.1.
3. The plaintiffs own and operate the 'DREAM11' fantasy sports platform, launched in 2012, which allows participants to draft virtual teams based on real players' performances in actual games.
4. The plaintiffs' fantasy sports platform has attracted investments from several notable investors. The popularity of the plaintiffs’ platform is further evidenced by the awards it has won, including the Red Herring 100 Award and the Red Herring Asia 100 Award. In the year 2019, the plaintiffs signed a Central Sponsorship contract with the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) for the Indian Premier League (IPL). As a result of the abovementioned activities undertaken by the plaintiffs, the Dream11 trademarks enjoy immense reputation and goodwill among consumers.
5. Plaintiff no.1 is the registered proprietor of the following trademarks in India:
1. 3802186 9, 16, 35, 41, 42 11th April,
2. 3660715 41, 42 21st October,
3. 3660717 41, 42 21st October,
4. 3660851 41, 42 22nd October,
5. 3660718 41, 42 21st October,
6. 3660720 9, 16, 35, 21st October, 41, 42 2017
7. 3802184 41, 42 11th April,
8. 3802185 41, 42 11th April,
9. 5262737 9, 16, 18, 25, 28, 35, 38, 41, 42, 27th December,
6. Plaintiff no. 2 is the registered proprietor of the following trademarks in India:
1. DREAM11 4863621 9, 16, 18, 28, 35, 38, 42, 45 25th September,
2. 1823011 38 28th May, 2009
3. 1823015 41 28th May, 2009 The Certificates for use in Legal Proceedings are filed as document nos. 1 and 2 of the documents filed along with the plaint. All the aforesaid registrations remain valid and subsisting.
7. This Court has previously recognized the plaintiffs’ statutory rights in the DREAM11 trademarks in several cases, granting injunctions against infringing parties such as Dream11Team, Dream111.net, Dream11com.in, Dream11apk.in and others.
8. Defendant no. 1 is the owner and operator of the website www.dreams11exch.com (hereinafter referred to as ‘the impugned website’) as also the mobile application ‘Dreams11’. Defendant no. 1 has been using the marks ‘Dreams11’, ‘Dreams11exch’, ‘ ’ as well as the domain name ‘dreams11exch.com’ (hereinafter collectively referred to as the ‘impugned marks’). The impugned website appears to offer betting and gambling facilities for various sports, including virtual cricket, horse racing, and greyhound racing. It also includes a ‘Live Casino’ section, allowing users to place bets on various games, such as ‘blackjack’ and ‘lightning roulette’. These activities are illegal in India. The defendant no. 1 is therefore, conducting illegal business under the impugned marks, thereby tarnishing the goodwill vesting in the plaintiffs’ Dream11 trademarks. The screenshots of the defendant no.1’s website and mobile application are filed as document nos. 10 and 12 of the documents filed along with the plaint.
9. Defendant no. 2 is Amazon Registrar, Inc., which is the domain name registrar for the domain dreams11exch.com.
10. Defendants no.3 and 4 are the Department of Telecommunications and Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology respectively, which were impleaded to seek temporary blocking orders against the website www.dreams11exch.com.
11. It is averred that the plaintiffs’ representative conducted a Google search for the defendant no. 1’s platform ‘Dreams11Exch’, which revealed the defendant no. 1’s impugned website as the top result, along with the following description: "Dreams 11 Exchange – Award winning exchange platform. Online sports exchange and casino platform is a fun gaming experience with all sports, binary, sportsbook, and Indian casino with live casino experience."
PROCEEDINGS IN THE SUIT
12. On 30th November 2023, this Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction against the defendant no. 1 and directed the defendant no. 2 to lock and suspend the impugned domain ‘dreams11exch.com’. Vide the said order, the defendant no. 2 was also directed to provide the plaintiffs with the details of the entity/person who registered the domain, including their email address, telephone number, and other Basic Subscriber Information (BSI). Defendant no. 2 complied with this order and shared the requested information with the plaintiffs, whereafter the plaintiffs filed an amended memo of parties on 12th January 2024, substituting Radhe (Company) as the defendant no. 1.
13. On 4th April 2024, the learned Joint Registrar recorded that the defendants no.3 and 4 were duly served. Despite being served, neither of the defendants have filed their written statements, and consequently, on 1st July 2024, the Joint Registrar closed their right to file written statements.
14. The defendant no. 1 was served with the summons on 4th April 2024, and till date, has not filed its written statement. On 16th August 2024, this Court noted that the maximum permissible period of 120 days for the defendant no. 1 to file its written statement had expired.
15. Vide order dated 1st October 2024, this Court directed the defendant no. 2 to transfer the impugned domain name, dreams11exch.com, to the plaintiff no.1 and consequently, deleted the defendant no. 2 from the array of parties.
16. The plaintiffs now seek a decree in terms of Order VIII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). In this regard, Mr. Seth, counsel for the plaintiffs, relied upon the judgment of this Court in Satya Infrastructure Ltd. & Ors. vs. Satya Infra & Estates Pvt. Ltd., 2013 (54) PTC 419 (Del) [CS(OS) 1213/2011, decided on 07.02.2013].
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
17. I have heard the submissions of Mr. Rohan Krishna Seth, learned counsel for the plaintiffs and also perused the material on record.
18. In Satya Infrastructure (supra), a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court held as follows:-
19. It is trite law that in an uncontested suit, it is not necessary to require the plaintiffs to lead evidence, and a summary disposal of the suit is permissible, on the basis of the contents of the plaint, supported by the statement of truth along with an affidavit and declaration under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. Therefore, in my opinion this suit does not merit trial and the suit is capable of being decreed in terms of Order VIII Rule 10 of CPC.
20. From the averments made in the plaint and the evidence on record, the plaintiffs have been able to prove that they are the registered proprietors of the trademarks “DREAM11”.
21. The plaintiffs have placed on record screenshots from the defendant no.1’s website ‘www.dreams11exch.com’ and its mobile application to show that the defendant no.1 is indulging in infringement and passing off the plaintiffs’ registered mark, ‘DREAM11’. From perusal of the impugned website and mobile application, it is evident that the defendant no. 1 has been providing these illegal services within the territory of India. The defendant no. 1’s impugned marks are deceptively similar to the plaintiffs’ mark ‘DREAM11’, with only a minor alteration—the addition of the letter ‘S’, and the addition of the term ‘exch’ in the impugned domain name. Defendant no. 1 is attempting to tarnish the reputation and goodwill of the plaintiffs by misleading the public into believing that its illegal services are associated with the ‘DREAM11’ trademarks or that they originate from or relate to the plaintiffs’ registered ‘DREAM11’ trademarks.
22. The plaintiffs have also cited several orders passed by this Court where the rights in the plaintiffs’ registered trademarks have been protected. The orders passed by this Court are in various proceedings and include the following: i. CS (COMM) No. 44 of 2023; Sporta Technologies Pvt. Ltd. vs. DreamZ11; judgment dated 19th October 2023 ii. CS (COMM) No. 202 of 2022; Sporta Technologies Pvt. Ltd. vs. Unfading OPC Pvt. Ltd.; judgment dated 7th July 2023 iii. CS (COMM) No. 375 of 2019; Sporta Technologies Pvt. Ltd. vs. Edream 11 Skill Power Pvt. Ltd.; judgment dated 20th Feb 2024
23. Based on the discussion above, a clear case of infringement of trademark is made out. The defendant no.1 has taken unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of the plaintiffs’ trademark and has also deceived the 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.
24. At this stage, it may be relevant to note that the defendant no.1 did not appear before the Court, despite service of summons on 4th April, 2024 via e-mail and SMS. Further, no communication on behalf of the defendants have been placed on record in respect of the allegations of the plaintiffs in this suit. Hence, the right to file written statements for the defendants no.3 and 4 was closed on 1st July, 2024 and in respect of the defendant no.1, it was closed on 16th August, 2024.
25. Since the defendants have failed to take any requisite steps to contest the present suit, despite having suffered an ad interim injunction order, it is evident that they have no defence to put forth on merits.
RELIEF
26. In view of the foregoing analysis, the suit is decreed in terms of prayer clauses 40(a) and 40(b) of the plaint. The said clauses read as follows:
a. A decree of permanent injunction restraining the Defendant No. 1, its representatives and/or others acting for and on its behalf from using the marks 'Dream11', 'Dreams11', 'Dreams11exch', 'Dreams11 Exchange' along-with logo,, or any other deceptively similar variant of the Plaintiffs' 'Dream11' trademarks, as a trademark, trade name, domain name, as part of their email addresses or in any other manner which amounts to infringement of the Plaintiffs' Dream 11 trademarks listed in the Plaint; b. A decree of permanent injunction restraining the Defendant No. 1, its representatives and/or others acting for and on its behalf from using the marks 'Dream11', 'Dreams11', 'Dreams11exch', 'Dreams11 Exchange' along-with logo,, or any other deceptively similar variant of the Plaintiffs' 'Dream11' trademarks, as a trademark, trade name, domain name, as part of their email addresses or in any other manner which amounts to passing off the services and business of the Defendants as that of the Plaintiffs.”
27. Counsel for the plaintiffs does not press for the reliefs as sought in prayer clauses 40(d) and 40(e) with respect to rendition of accounts, and damages.
28. I am of the view that in the present facts and circumstances, the plaintiffs are entitled to recover actual costs from the defendant no.1. Accordingly, a decree for actual costs is passed in terms of prayer clause 40(f) of the plaint.
29. For the purposes of calculation of actual costs, the plaintiffs shall file its bill of costs in terms of Rule 5 of Chapter XXIII of the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018 within four weeks. For this purpose, the representatives of the plaintiffs shall appear before the Joint Registrar, who shall determine the actual costs incurred by the plaintiffs in the present litigation.
30. Let the decree sheet be drawn up.
31. All pending applications stand disposed of. AMIT BANSAL, J OCTOBER 16, 2024