Delhi High Court: A suit was filed by Sporta Technologies Private Limited (plaintiff) seeking permanent injunction restraining infringement of registered trademarks passing off, infringement of copyright, rendition of accounts, damages and delivery up on account of adoption and use of the marks “DREAM”, the domain name “dream11lotery.com”, and the plaintiffs’ email address “admin@dream11.com” by defendant 1, which amounts to infringement and passing off of the plaintiffs “Dream 11” trademarks. Mini Pushkarna, J., held that the defendants’ use of marks similar to “DREAM,” domain names such as “dream11lotery.com,” and the email address “admin@dream11.com” amounted to an infringement of Sporta Technologies’ registered trademark “Dream 11.”
The present case involves a lawsuit filed by the plaintiffs, Dream11 and its parent company, a popular fantasy sports platform, against entities allegedly infringing on its registered trademarks, copyright, and overall brand identity. The suit arises from the plaintiffs discovering a website, “dream11lotery.com,” run by the anonymous defendant John Doe (Defendant 1), which closely replicates Dream11’s official website and misuses their brand name and elements. Defendant 2, the domain name registrant of “dream11lotery.com,” was found to be facilitating this infringement by registering a domain deceptively similar to the plaintiffs’ own “dream11.com.” The plaintiffs alleged that Defendant 1’s actions amount to infringement of their trademark rights, as well as unauthorized imitation of Dream11’s unique trade dress and design elements.
Dream11 was founded as a platform where users create fantasy sports teams, earning points based on real-life player performances. Since its inception, it has become a prominent brand in fantasy sports, partnering with international sports leagues and garnering awards that underscore its credibility. With over 20 crore users and numerous sponsorships, including with the BCCI for the Indian Premier League (IPL), Dream11 has established a significant presence and reputation. Defendant No. 1’s imitation website purportedly uses Dream11’s trademarks and other identifiers to mislead the public into thinking it is associated with Dream11, violating both trademark and copyright laws.
After the plaintiffs discovered the infringing website in December 2023, on 08-01-2024, the Court granted an interim injunction favoring the plaintiffs, prohibiting Defendant 1 and associated parties from using any marks or domains similar to Dream11’s. The Court also directed Defendant 2, the domain registrar, to suspend access to the infringing website and reveal the details of the registrant.
Despite being served via email, the defendants failed to respond or file written statements within the statutory period, leading the Court to close their right to file such statements and proceed ex parte. The Court, exercising its authority under Order VIII Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code, deemed it unnecessary to go through a trial process as no defense was presented. The Court also observed that recording ex parte evidence would waste judicial resources since the evidence on record was sufficient to rule in favor of the plaintiffs.
Thus, the Court held that the defendants had infringed on Dream11’s intellectual property rights. The Court issued a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from further infringing activities and upheld the plaintiffs’ claims, thus providing Dream11 with comprehensive relief against unauthorized use of its brand.
[Sporta Technologies Private Limited v. John Doe, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 7666, decided on 04-11-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Mr. Rohan Krishna Seth and Ms. Shilpi Sinha, Advocates for plaintiff
Dr. B. Ramaswamy, CGSC for D-2
