Blogs

NAME OF THE CASE: SPORTA TECHNOILOGIES V. HONG Y1 F35 CITATION: CS(COMM) 663/2023 & I.A. 18534/2023 NAME OF THE PLAINTIFF(S): SPORTA TECHNOLOGIES NAME OF THE DEFENDANT(S): JOHN DOE DATE OF THE JUDGMENT: 16TH OCTOBER, 2024 COURT: HIGH COURT OF DELHI NAME OF THE JUDGE: PRATIBHA M. SINGH FACTS: ISSUES RAISED: The goal of the current lawsuit is to obtain a permanent injunction that will prevent the defendants from violating the plaintiffs’ copyright and trademark, passing off their products and services as the plaintiffs’, and other related reliefs. CONTENTION: PLAINTIFF SIDE: They argued that the defendants’ use and adoption of the mark “Dream11” in their business dealings was an obvious intent to profit from the plaintiff’s goodwill and, as such, constituted infringement. DEFENDANT SIDE: A conscious effort to deceive the public was demonstrated by the defendants’ refusal to reply to the lawsuit and their ongoing use of the plaintiffs’ intellectual property. JUDGEMENT: The Court referring to the principles established in previous rulings, highlighted in uncontested suits that it is permissible to base decisions on the plaint’s contents without necessitating further evidence. The court found that the plaintiff demonstrated their registered rights in their trademarks and copyright over the user interface of their website. The court thereby conducted thorough research and compared the plaintiff’s and the defendant’s websites, observing that the latter’s site utilized virtually identical elements, including the trademark and the tagline “DREAM BIG.” Here are the proceedings in the suit. DEFECTS (ANALYSIS) OF THE LAW: The suit is decided in accordance with the plaints’ prayer clauses 44(a), 44(b), and 44(c) as a result of the aforementioned analysis. The Delhi Court, granting the permanent injunction sought to protect their intellectual property rights and to uphold the integrity of their brand in the marketplace. According to the Delhi High Court, “The similarities between the plaintiffs’ and defendants’ marks indicate a flagrant case of infringement under Section 29(2)(b) of the Trade Marks Act 1999, the fact that they are used to provide identical services, and the resulting possibility of consumer confusion. CONCLUSION: In my opinion, this case is or was a clear breach of copyright and trademark and in today’s scenario there are multiple and newly evolved laws to deal with this subject. The fact that defendant used the logos, domain names, trade secrets etc from the plaintiff, that makes them questionable under trademark and when they created a somewhat similar email address, they were infringing the copyright of DREAM11 thereby making them liable under copyright infringement. Many new laws which deal around the same hemisphere has also come up. As Dream 11 is a virtual gaming platform. It comes under the Fantasy Sports[1] which is a small part of the Sports Law generally and E-sports and Gaming laws in particular. REFERENCE: SANOJ KUMAR PAUL BBA LLB HONS 1ST YEAR NETAJI SUBHAS UNIVERSITY JAMSHEDPUR, JHARKHAND