Disposed

Sporta Technologies Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Kundan Roy

Delhi HC15 Apr 2024CS(COMM)/766/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Plaintiffs, proprietors of DREAM 11 and FANCODE trademarks, sued the Defendant over use of FANCODE11 and the domain www.fancode11.com for fantasy sports services. The Defendant proceeded ex parte after failing to appear. Plaintiffs waived damages claims; the court decreed permanent injunction in terms of plaint prayers.

What did the court decide?

Decree of permanent injunction granted in terms of Paragraphs 45(a) and (b) of the plaint; Plaintiffs free to approach DNR BigRock Solutions Ltd. to purchase the impugned domain name

Sporta Technologies Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs Kundan Roy — Intellectual Property | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~44

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- CS(COMM) 766/2022 & I.A. 18057/2022

¶4

SPORTA TECHNOLOGIES PVT LTD & ANR. ..... Plaintiffs

¶5

Through: Mr. Prithvi Singh and Ms. Shilpi Sinha, Advocates.

¶6

versus

¶7

MR. BIPIN CHOWDHARY ..... Defendant

¶8

Through: None. CORAM:

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

¶10

O R D E R

¶11

% 15.04.2024

¶12

Plaintiffs are the proprietors of various trademark registrations in respect of the mark “DREAM 11”¹ , which they use in respect of their online fantasy sports platform. Additionally, Plaintiff No. 2 is also the registered proprietor of the trademark “FANCODE” and its derivative marks² , which is utilised by the Plaintiffs to operate a multi-sport aggregator platform for live streaming matches and offering other sports content. Plaintiff No. 2 is also the registrant of the domain name www.fancode.com.

¶13

Plaintiffs are aggrieved by the Defendant’s use of the trademark ‘FANCODE11’, which they contend is being used to offer identical services as the Plaintiffs, i.e., online fantasy sports. On 9^th November, 2022, finding a prima facie case in favour of the Plaintiffs, an ex-parte ad-interim injunction was granted in their favour. The said injunction order was thereafter

¶14

1 Details of Plaintiffs’ “DREAM 11” trademark registrations are delineated in Paragraphs No. 7 and 8 of the plaint.

¶15

2 Details of Plaintiff No. 2’s registrations for “FANCODE” trademarks are set out in Paragraph No. 26 of the plaint.

¶16

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 23/04/2024 at 11:42:12

¶17

confirmed on 11^th October, 2023, and continues to operate.

¶18

Upon service, Mr. Kundan Roy, who was originally impleaded as the Defendant, appeared before this Court and opted to settle the matter. Accordingly, the suit was decreed on the basis of the statement made by him, as recorded in order dated 11^th October, 2023. During the hearing, Mr. Roy also made a statement that he had registered the impugned domain name www.fancode11.com for one Mr. Bipin Chowdhary ( alias Rohit). Accordingly, Mr. Roy was deleted as a Defendant whereas Mr. Chowdhary was impleaded as the Defendant and the injunction was extended to him.

¶19

Mr. Prithvi Singh, counsel for Plaintiffs, states that the only contact details of Mr. Chowdhary available with the Plaintiffs is his mobile number, which has been noted in Paragraph No. 11 of order dated 11^th October, 2023. In absence of any other contact details, the Plaintiffs have attempted service on Mr. Bipin Chowdhary through SMS on the said phone number. However, despite service of summons, Mr. Bipin Chowdhary has not appeared or filed any written statement. The overall condonable limit set under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) for filing written statement in commercial suits has also expired. In these circumstances, the right to file written statement stands closed and Mr. Bipin Chowdhary is proceeded ex parte .

¶20

Mr. Singh on instructions states that the Plaintiffs are waiving their claims for damages and costs against Mr. Bipin Chowdhary, and would be satisfied in case the Court were to grant the relief of injunction. Further, Mr. Singh states that the impugned domain name “www.fancode11.com”, for which a decree is sought in terms of Paragraph No. 45(d) of the plaint, is no longer registered with Mr. Bipin Chowdhary and is available for purchase. Thus, the Plaintiffs would also not be pressing for any decree to that effect.

¶21

This is a digitally signed order.

¶22

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 23/04/2024 at 11:42:12

¶23

Nonetheless, Mr. Singh states that the Court may permit the Plaintiffs to approach the Domain Name Registrar (DNR) of the impugned domain name––‘BigRock Solutions Ltd.’––for purchase of the said domain name, and till such time, the said DNR may grant certain time to enable the Plaintiffs to make the purchase.

¶24

The Court has considered the aforenoted circumstances. Plaintiffs have established their statutory rights over their “DREAM 11” and “FANCODE” trademarks, as well as the domain name “www.fancode.com”. Further, this Court has already found the Defendant’s activities on the website “www.fancode11.com” to be infringing. In light of the above, considering the fact that Mr. Bipin Chowdhary has neither appeared nor put forth any defence to the present suit, in the opinion of the Court, the Plaintiffs are entitled to a decree under Order VIII Rule 10 of CPC for the relief of permanent injunction in terms of Paragraph No. 45(a) and (b) of the plaint. As noted above, none of the other reliefs are pressed.

¶25

Accordingly, the suit is decreed, in favour of the Plaintiffs and against the Defendant/ Mr. Bipin Chowdhary, in terms of prayers contained in Paragraphs No. 45(a) and (b) of the plaint.

¶26

Decree sheet be drawn up.

¶27

It is clarified that the Plaintiffs shall be free to approach the DNR ‘BigRock Solutions Ltd.’ for purchase of the domain name www.fancode11.com.

¶28

The suit, along with pending applications, is disposed of.

¶29

SANJEEV NARULA, J

¶30

APRIL 15, 2024 /as

¶31

Sporta Technologies Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Kundan Roy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sporta Technologies Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Kundan Roy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Zomato Private Limited Formerly Zomato Media Pvt. Ltd. Vs Harsh Pandey & Ors.

M/S Trdp Happy World Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S Anmol Beverages & Ors.

Ms. Vidushi Vijayvergiya & Anr. Vs Honasa Consumer Limited

Super Cassettes Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs Ortel Communications Ltd.

Apnatime Tech Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs Eloquent Info Solutions Private Limited & Anr.

V Guard Industries Ltd. Vs Akash Gupta & Ors.

Sporta Technologies Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. Vs DREAM7 Entertainment Private Limited and Anr.

Sanjeev Kumar Goel Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi

M/S Trdp Happy World Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S Anmol Beverages & Ors.

Super Cassettes Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs Ortel Communications Ltd.

The Polo/Lauren Company L.P. Vs M/S Home Needs

Tdbd Engineering Works Ltd. Vs Mamchand S/O Sadhuram and Ors.

Agra Chemical Works Vs Gambhir Chemical Industries

Novartis Ag & Anr. Vs Natco Pharma Limited