Delhi High Court: A suit was filed by Sporta Technologies Pvt. Ltd. (plaintiff) seeking permanent injunction restraining the defendants for alleged unlawful activities of the defendants, specifically the operation of a website that closely mimics the plaintiffs’ established fantasy sports platform, “DREAM11”. Amit Bansal, J., restrained (defendant 1), along with its representatives, from using the marks ‘Dream 11’, its logos, or any deceptively similar variant as a trademark, trade name, domain name, or part of their email addresses, as this 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. The “DREAM11” platform, launched in 2012, allows users to create virtual teams based on actual game performances. Over the years, the platform has gained significant popularity, evidenced by considerable investments and accolades, including the Red Herring 100 and Red Herring Asia 100 awards. In 2019, the plaintiffs entered a central sponsorship agreement with the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) for the Indian Premier League (IPL), further enhancing their reputation and goodwill in the market. The plaintiffs hold several registered trademarks related to the “DREAM11” name and its associated services, which have been recognized and protected in prior court decisions against infringing third-party variants.
Defendant 1 operates the website www.dream11com.in, which allegedly replicates the earlier version of the plaintiffs’ official website. The plaintiffs asserted that this website uses their registered trademark “DREAM11,” as well as their logos and taglines, leading to confusion among consumers. 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. This diversion of users is presented as not only infringing on the plaintiffs’ rights but also as tarnishing their brand reputation and goodwill.
Following the filing of the suit, the Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction against Defendant 1 on 22-09-2023, which included orders to lock and suspend the infringing domain. As the case progressed, it was noted that the defendants failed to submit a written statement, resulting in the closure of their right to do so. The plaintiffs sought a decree in line with Order VIII Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 allowing for a summary judgment in their favor.
The Court referred to the principles established in previous rulings, particularly highlighting that in uncontested suits, it is permissible to base decisions on the plaint’s contents without necessitating further evidence. The Court found that the plaintiffs sufficiently demonstrated their registered rights in the “DREAM11” trademarks and their copyright over the user interface of their website. The Court conducted a thorough comparison between the plaintiffs’ and defendants’ websites, observing that the latter’s site utilized virtually identical elements, including the trademark and the tagline “DREAM BIG.” The defendant’s actions, characterized by the replication of the plaintiffs’ site, were deemed as clear instances of trademark infringement and copyright violation.
Thus, the Court concluded that the plaintiffs had established a compelling case for relief, affirming that the defendants had taken unfair advantage of the plaintiffs’ trademarks and goodwill. Given the overwhelming evidence of similarity between the two platforms and the absence of any defense from the defendants, the Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, granting the permanent injunction sought to protect their intellectual property rights and to uphold the integrity of their brand in the marketplace.
[Sporta Technologies v. Hong Y1 F35, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 7310, decided on 16-10-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Mr. Rohan Krishna Seth and Ms. Shilpi Sinha, Advocates for plaintiff
Mr. Parva Khare, Advocate for respondent