Sporta Technologies Pvt. Ltd. And Another V. Hong Yi F35 And Others

Introduction

In this case, before the Delhi High Court (“DHC”), where Sporta Technologies Pvt. Ltd., the parent company of the DREAM11 platform, (“Plaintiffs”) sought relief against Hong Yi F35 and others (“Defendants”) for trademark and copyright infringement. The Plaintiffs asserted that the defendants have replicated its website design and logo on their own site, dream11com.in, creating confusion among users and associating DREAM11’s name with gambling activities promoted on the defendants’ website. The plaintiffs requested a permanent injunction, along with other reliefs, to prevent the defendants from using the DREAM11 trademarks and user interface in a manner that allegedly misleads the public and tarnishes DREAM11’s brand reputation.

Issues Raised

1. Whether the defendants infringe on DREAM11’s registered trademarks by using identical or deceptively similar marks on their website?
2. Whether the defendants violate the plaintiffs’ copyright by replicating the DREAM11 website’s user interface?
3. Whether the defendants’ actions amount to passing off by misrepresenting their services as those of the plaintiffs?
4. Whether the plaintiffs’ suit is eligible for summary judgment under Order VIII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908?

Ratio

The DHC, based on the case of Satya Infrastructure Ltd. v. Satya Infra & Estates Pvt. Ltd.,[1] found that in uncontested suits, plaintiffs are not required to lead extensive evidence. Thus, the contents of the plaint, if supported by an affidavit and the necessary legal declaration, suffice for summary adjudication. Therefore, it would prevent an undue delay when defendants, having been duly notified, failed to present a defense.

Analysis

The DHC examined the material submitted by the plaintiffs, including evidence of their registered trademarks and copyrighted website interface. It was illustrated that the defendants’ website, dream11com.in, not only mirrored the DREAM11 brand marks and layout but also linked to betting services. Such usage, the DHC found, intentionally diverted consumers and diluted the plaintiffs’ brand reputation by associating DREAM11 with gambling, which is illegal in India.

The defendants’ failure to respond to the suit and their continued use of the plaintiffs’ intellectual property underscored a deliberate attempt to mislead the public. The DHC noted several previous orders protecting DREAM11’s trademarks, further establishing the plaintiffs’ strong precedent for similar injunctive relief.

Conclusion

The DHC decreed in favor of the plaintiffs, issuing a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from using the DREAM11 marks, logos, tagline, and user interface. Additionally, the Court ordered the domain dream11com., to be transferred to the plaintiffs. Costs of the litigation were awarded to the plaintiffs, with the Joint Registrar directed to determine the actual costs. This case reaffirms the Court’s protective stance on intellectual property rights and supports summary adjudication in cases of uncontested infringement.

[1] Satya Infrastructure Ltd. & Ors. vs. Satya Infra & Estates Pvt. Ltd., 2013 (54) PTC 419 (Del) [CS(OS) 1213/2011, decided on 07.02.2013]