LYFT, INC. v. GOER TECHNO INFRA PRIVATE LIMITED

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

2. The present suit relates to the trademark ‘LYFT’, which is used by the Plaintiff in respect of providing on-demand ride sharing services. The Plaintiff is a US based company, which started using the mark ‘LYFT’ as a service for short trips within cities. The company name of the Plaintiff was changed in the year 2013 to its current name i.e., LYFT, INC with mark ‘LYFT’. The Plaintiff claims leadership position among peer-to-peer (P2P) ride sharing platforms and is using the mark extensively since adoption. The Defendant was using the mark ‘GO LYFT’ for an identical category of services i.e., ride sharing services, which led to filing of the present suit for infringement of the Plaintiff’s registered Trade Mark as also passing off.

3. An ex-parte ad-interim injunction was granted in this matter on 27th August, 2019 in the following terms. Signing Date:28.09.2023 16:21

4. The Defendant - M/s GOER Techno Infra Private Limited is located in Lucknow and the Court had appointed a Local Commissioner and the commission was executed. A perusal of the Local Commissioner’s report would show that the Defendant was running a small operation, though substantial amount of stationery was seized from the Defendant’s premises. Mr. Ashutosh Thakur, ld. Counsel appearing for the Defendant had submitted on the last date of hearing i.e., 26th April, 2023, which is also reiterated today that the Defendant does not wish to contest the suit and that the Defendant has already shut down its business. The order dated 26th April, 2023 is set out below:

5. Ms. Tanya Varma, ld. Counsel appearing for the Plaintiff submits that the Plaintiff has no objection if the decree is passed. However, considering the amount of money involved in the Plaintiff filing the present suit, some costs ought to be reimbursed.

6. The Court has heard ld. Counsels for both the parties and perused the record. The Plaintiff company- Lyft Inc. was founded in the year 2008 and is a transportation network company which facilitates peer-to-peer ridesharing. Lyft Inc. has its headquarters in San Francisco, USA. The business model of Lyft Inc. focused on linking drivers with passengers on social media platforms like Facebook Connect for ride sharing and carpooling, especially for inter-city long distance car rides. At the time of filing of the suit, Lyft is stated to be having a valuation of $ 24.[3] billion with over 18 million active riders. In the year 2016, the Plaintiff company was ranked at 19th position in the Unicorn List taken out by Fortune Magazine.

7. The Plaintiff company is also the registered proprietor of the trade mark LYFT and also several variants in India. Copies of the Trade Mark registration Certificates issued by the Registrar of Trade Marks are also annexed with the Plaint. It is also averred that the mark ‘LYFT’ is registered in various other countries including United States of America, Australia, Japan, United Arab Emirates, etc. The details of the trademark registrations of the Plaintiff in India are given in paragraph 21 of the plaint and are set out below:

8. The plaint would reveal that the Plaintiff’s mark ‘LYFT’ has been identically copied by the Defendant. The Defendant had also registered a domain name www.golyft.in. The use of the mark ‘GO LYFT’ and also the domain name, that too, for an identical service would unquestionably constitute infringement and passing off.

9. In the above factual matrix, the present case is one where the triple identity test is satisfied, i.e., • the mark of the Plaintiff and the Defendant is almost identical, • the services on which the marks are used are identical, and • the customers/trade channel would also be identical.

10. The said test has been also been relied upon by a ld. Single Judge of this Court in Sumeet Research and Holdings (P) Ltd. v. Sipra Appliances, 2018:DHC:5984, to assess the similarity between two marks and the likelihood of confusion amongst the public. Moreover, the website, mobile application and social media pages of the Defendant were all interactive in nature and people could inquire to avail and book services of the Defendant from any part of India, including Delhi. Thus, the tests as laid down in the judgement of the Division Bench of this Court in Banyan Tree Holding (P) Ltd. v. A. Murali Krishna Reddy & Anr., 2009:DHC:4919-DB is also satisfied.

11. The Defendant filed its written statement in which the primary defence is that the marks are different and there cannot be any monopoly. However, considering the current stand of the Defendant, who is willing to suffer a decree and seeing the extent of operation of the Defendant, the suit is decreed in terms of paragraph 39(i) to (viii) of the prayer, which are set out below: “(i) An order of permanent injunction restraining the Defendant, its employees, servants, agents, representatives and all others in active concert or participation with them from providing services under the mark GO LYFT or any other mark which amounts to an infringement of the trademarks of the Plaintiff; (ii)An order for permanent injunction restraining the Defendants, its directors/ partners, servants, agents and all others in active concert with them from using the Plaintiffs trademark LYFT or any other mark deceptively similar thereto in the course of its business in any manner so as to result in an act of passing off its services as those of the Plaintiff or suggesting a connection or association with the Plaintiff, including but not limited to using the mark as a part of its domain name www.golyft.in and as a part of its trade and company name and on other physical or electronic materials;