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:
- In a lawsuit, plaintiff Sporta Technologies Pvt Ltd. requested a permanent injunction to stop the defendants from engaging in their illegal activities, namely the operation of a website that closely resembles the plaintiffs’ well-known fantasy sports platform, “DREAM11.”
- Amit Bansal (defendant 1) with his representatives was restrained from the use of trademark ‘DREAM 11’, logos, trade name, domain name or part of email address, as it amounted to infringement of the plaintiffs’ trademarks and passing off the defendant’s services as those of the plaintiffs.
- The plaintiffs are well-established entities in the fantasy sports domain incorporated in India in 2007, and Dream Sports Inc., (Plaintiff 2) incorporated in Delaware, USA, serving as the holding company.
- DREAM 11 allowed user to create teams and play and gained significant popularity with the passage of time.
- In 2019, the plaintiffs entered an Indian Premier League (IPL) central sponsorship deal with the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI), which improved their standing and goodwill in the marketplace.
- On the other hand, Defendant 1 operates the website www.dream11com.in which allegedly replicates the earlier version of plaintiff’s website.
- The defendant’s site is claimed to provide identical fantasy sports services while also redirecting users to an external betting site, Gugobet, promoting activities that are illegal in India.
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.
- Whether the defendant infringe on plaintiff’s trademark by the use of identical or similar marks on their website?
- Whether the defendants violate the copyright of plaintiff by making a replica of Dream 11’s website interface?
- Whether the defendants’ actions amount to passing off by misrepresenting their services?
- Whether the plaintiff’s suit is eligible for summary judgement under Order VIII Rule 10 of CPC,1908?
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.
- Plaintiff no.1-Sporta Technologies Pvt. Ltd. is a company incorporated in 2007 under the laws of India. Plaintiff no.
- Dream Sports Inc. is incorporated under the laws of Delaware, USA, and is the holding company of the plaintiff no.1.
- The ‘DREAM11′ fantasy sports platform, which was introduced in 2012 and lets users create virtual teams based on real players’ performance in real games, is owned and run by the plaintiffs.
- Additionally, plaintiff no.2 is the registrant of the domain ‘dream11.com’, which has been registered since 17th March 2008. The plaintiffs host an active website from the said domain, wherein it provides information about its Dream11 platform.
- Defendant No. 1 deceives the public by claiming to provide fantasy sports services that are exact replicas of those offered by the plaintiffs.
- The Plaint’s paragraph 25 goes into detail about the parallels. 11. The hyperlinks in the “How to Play on Dream11 App” FAQ section and the “Register Account” link on the contested website take users Digitally Signed By: DHARMENDER to www.gugobet.com, which actively encourages betting and gambling activities.
- Interestingly, the website in question states that it is “one of the biggest global sports betting websites, founded in the UK since 2006” in its “Gugobet Sponsor” section.
- Defendant No. 1 is damaging the plaintiffs’ brand and goodwill by directing users of the Dream11 platform to a website that provides unlawful betting and gaming services in India through the creation of a mirror website.
- The domain name registrar that registered the domain “dream11com.in” for defendant no. 1 is GoDaddy.com, LLC, the second defendant. The Department of Telecommunications and the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology, respectively, are defendants number three and four. They were urged to request interim banning orders against the www.dream11com.in website. The National Internet Exchange of India is the fifth defendant.
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.
- On 22nd September 2023, An ex-parte ad-interim injunction was issued by this court against defendant number 1. It was ordered that defendant number two lock and suspend the domain “dream11com.in.” and provide details of the Registrant of the said domain, which were subsequently disclosed. Thereafter, the plaintiffs filed an amended Memo of Parties on 16th November 2023, substituting Hong Yi \u5f35 as the defendant no. 1.
- On 17th November 2023, the learned Joint Registrar noted that the defendants no.2 to 4 were duly served. Nevertheless, the maximum allowable term of 120 days passed and no written statement was submitted on behalf of the aforementioned defendants.
- Despite being served on February 9, 2024, defendant number one did not provide a written statement within the allotted 120 days. As a result, on August 12, 2024, all defendants lost their ability to submit written statements. 16. The plaintiffs are now asking for a decree in line with Order VIII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). Mr. Seth, the plaintiffs’ lawyer, backed up his claim with the court’s decision in Satya Infrastructure Ltd. & Ors. vs. Satya Infra & Estates Pvt. Ltd.
DEFECTS (ANALYSIS) OF THE LAW:
- This case involves plaintiffs who have filed a suit for infringement of their registered trademark and copyright over their website’s user interference.
- After examining the plaintiffs’ arguments and supporting documentation, the court determined that the defendant had clearly violated the plaintiffs’ trademark by copying their mark, logo, and website design.
- Evidences are even provided in the form of screenshots by the plaintiff showing similarity between the two websites, in terms of service offered as well as appearance.
- The Court also noted that in uncontested suits, a summary disposal is permissible based on the contents of the plaint and supporting affidavits, without the need for further evidence or trial.
- Despite that the defendant did not even appear in the court and failed to file a written statement or contest the allegations.
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.
- a. A permanent injunction prohibiting the use of the marks “Dream 11” by Defendant No. 1, its agents, and/or third parties acting on its behalf.
- A permanent injunction prohibiting Defendant No. 1, its agents, and/or other individuals working on its behalf from using the marks “Dream 11” and the tagline, or any confusingly similar variation of them, as a trademark, trade name, domain name, or as part of their email addresses, or in any other way that would mistakenly represent the Plaintiffs’ business and services;
- A permanent injunction prohibiting the use of a layout or user interface on the website “www.dream11com.in” by Defendant No. 1, its agents, and/or those acting on its behalf. As a result, the Court concluded in the favour of the plaintiff and said that the plaintiffs had proven their case of infringement and passing off, and that the defendants had no defence. The Court referred to prior judgments protecting the plaintiffs’ trademarks, strengthening their position. Based on the evidence and legal precedents, the Court was inclined to grant the plaintiffs’ claims for injunctive relief.
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:
- Copyright Act 1957
- Sec 2(b) of the Trademarks Act 1999
- Order 8 Rule 10 Code of Civil Procedure
- https://ksandk.com/newsletter/sporta-technologies-pvt-ltd-and-another-v-hong-yi-f35-and-others/
- scconline.com/blog/post/2024/10/25/delhi-high-court-permanent-injunction-dream11-logo-infringement-sporta-technologies-legal-news/
SANOJ KUMAR PAUL
BBA LLB HONS 1ST YEAR
NETAJI SUBHAS UNIVERSITY JAMSHEDPUR, JHARKHAND