Delhi High Court: In an application filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘CPC’), seeking a perpetual and mandatory injunction against the infringement of the well-known trade mark ‘BAAZI’ of the plaintiff- Moonshine Technology Private Limited (‘Moonshine’), a Single Judge Bench of Mini Pushkarna, J., granted ex-parte ad-interim injunction in the favour of Moonshine and against the unidentified defendants. The Court restrained the defendants from accessing, using, modifying, alienating, dispositioning, or transferring the domain names in question.
Background
Moonshine is the parent company of the Baazi Group of Companies, which offers gaming products and experiences under the branding and trademarks inter alia ‘BAAZI’, ‘BAAZI GAMES’, ‘BAAZI MOBILE GAMING’, ‘POKERBAAZI’, ‘BALLEBAAZI’, ‘SPORTSBAAZI’, ‘RUMMYBAAZI’, ‘CARDBAAZI’, and the label marks viz.
etc. It was contended that Moonshine was a leading online gaming business and was well-known and widely recognised under the brand and trademark ‘BAAZI’. The Court in Moonshine Technology (P) Ltd. v. Tictok Skill Games (P) Ltd., 2022 SCC OnLine Del 296 had recognised that ‘BAAZI’ was a well-known trade mark of Moonshine.
It was contended that there was a flagrant violation of Moonshine’s trade mark ‘BAAZI’ by unauthorised domain registrants and rogue website owners. Besides committing cyber-squatting, the unidentifiable registrants were also employing bait-and-switch methods to redirect user traffic to their infringing and rogue websites or domains wherein they offered illegal gambling and betting services.
These unauthorised users included Respondents 1 to 5, who were allegedly hosting illegal gambling and casino websites through and under the infringing domain name/branding. They were also diverting Moonshine’s customers and internet users towards their websites with mala fide intent to indulge the said customers and users in illegal activities. Further, defendants 6 to 8 had registered and were managing various infringing domain names.
Aggrieved by such misuse of their trade mark, Moonshine filed the present suit and the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC.
Analysis
The Court stated that Moonshine had demonstrated a prima facie case for grant of injunction. The Court held that Moonshine would suffer an irreparable loss if an ex-parte ad-interim injunction was granted. Further, the balance of convenience was also in Moonshine’s favour and against the defendants.
Accordingly, the Court restrained defendants 1 to 5 from accessing, using, modifying, alienating, dispositioning, or transferring the specified domain names. Further, the Court directed defendants 6 to 8 to suspend the access and use of the specified domain names by their respective registrants and to disclose the details of the registrants of the infringing domain names by way of an affidavit within one week.
[Moonshine Technology Private Limited v. Ashok Kumar, I.A. 3850 of 2025 in CS(COMM) 124 of 2025, decided on 14-02-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the plaintiff: Senior Advocate Raj Shekhar Rao, Subhash Bhutoria, Anuja Negi, Ayesha Khan and Sanjana Bishnoi
For the defendant: Aishwarya Kane and Gaurav Barathi
