• Kandivali West Mumbai 400067, India
  • 022 39167251
  • support@email.com
April 12, 2022

For Similarity with trademark Dream 11 HC restrains use of mark ‘SattaDream11’

by CA Shivam Jaiswal in Compliance Law, Legal Court Judgement

For Similarity with trademark Dream 11 HC restrains use of mark ‘SattaDream11’

Facts and issue of the case

Present application has been preferred on behalf of the Plaintiffs seeking leave to file additional documents under Order 11 Rule 1 (4) CPC.

Plaintiffs, if they wish to file additional documents at a later stage, shall do so strictly as per the provisions of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. Application is disposed of.

I.A. 5074/2022 (filing original documents)

Subject to the Plaintiffs filing originals, clearer copies and documents with proper margins, which they may seek to place reliance, within four weeks from today, exemption is granted.

Application is allowed and disposed of.

Let plaint be registered as a suit.

Upon filing of process fee, issue summons to Defendant, through all permissible modes, returnable on 11.07.2022. Summons shall state that the written statement shall be filed by the Defendant within 30 days from the receipt of summons. Along with the written statement, Defendant shall also file an affidavit of admission/denial of the documents of the Plaintiffs.

Replication be filed by the Plaintiffs within 15 days of the receipt of the written statement. Along with the replication, an affidavit of admission/denial of documents filed by the Defendant, shall be filed by the Plaintiffs. If any of the parties wish to seek inspection of any documents, the same shall be sought and given within the timelines.

List before the Joint Registrar for marking of exhibits on 11.07.2022.

List before the Court on 04.08.2022.

I.A. 5072/2022 (under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC)

Issue notice to the Defendant through all prescribed modes, returnable on 04.08.2022.

Present application has been preferred by the Plaintiffs under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 for grant of ex-parte ad-interim injunction.

Plaintiff No.1 is a private limited company having its registered office at Mumbai. Plaintiff No.2 is a company incorporated in the United States of America and Plaintiff No.1 is a wholly owned subsidiary of Plaintiff No.2.

Observation of the case

It is averred in the plaint that Plaintiffs are a hugely popular and well- known fantasy sports platform launched in 2012 and are the official fantasy sports partner of the International Council of Cricket (ICC), The Campeonato Nacional de Liga de Premiera Division (La Liga), Vivo Indian Premier League (IPL), KFC Big Bash League (BBL), Hero Caribbean Premier League (CPL) T20, National Basketball Association (NBA), Vivo Pro Kabaddi League, International Hockey Federation (FIH), Hero Indian Super League and T20 Mumbai. Plaintiffs have also acquired official partner rights for the international and domestic matches of the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) since 2019.

It is averred by the Plaintiffs that Plaintiff No. 2 is the registered proprietor of, inter alia, the trademark Dream 11 in a number of classes in India. It also registered the domain http://www.dream11.com on 17.03.2008. Details of the registrations are mentioned in paras 7 and 8 of the plaint. The registrations are valid and subsisting.

It is further averred that the Plaintiffs’ mobile and online platform have over 12 crore users playing fantasy, cricket, hockey, football, etc. as on the present date. Plaintiffs’ rights over the trademark ‘Dream 11’ have been upheld by this Court in several suits against many third parties, who have used variants of ‘Dream 11’ in their domain names such as ‘eDream11’, ‘dream11.bet’, ‘mydream11’, etc.

It is the case of the Plaintiffs that Defendant is the owner and operator of the website http://www.sattadream11.com which appears to have been registered on 01.11.2021. Defendant appears to be offering sports betting services on their website, which by their nature are illegal in India. Defendant is not only using the mark “Satta Dream11” as a word, but also the logo, the dominant part of which is the Plaintiffs’ trademark ‘DREAM 11’, with the prefix “satta”, which in Hindi language means and connotes gambling/betting and is therefore descriptive of the Defendant’s services.

It is averred that the unlawful nature of the Defendant’s business is further apparent from its own claim on its website.

It is contended by learned counsel for the Plaintiffs that by using the Plaintiffs’ trademark, the Defendant is tarnishing the reputation and image of the Plaintiffs in as much as the public is associating the Plaintiffs with the unlawful activities carried out by the Defendant. The use of the trademark is clearly with the objective of riding over the goodwill and reputation that the Plaintiffs enjoy in the concerned field of fantasy sports.

Having heard the learned counsel for the Plaintiffs, this Court is of the view that Plaintiffs have made out a prima facie case for grant of ex parte ad-interim injunction. Balance of convenience lies in favour of the Plaintiffs and they are likely to suffer irreparable harm in case the injunction, as prayed for, is not granted.

Conclusion

Defendant, its directors, representatives and/or other(s) acting for/on its behalf are restrained from using the mark ‘SattaDream11” or any deceptively similar variant thereof, as the trademark, tradename, domain name or on social media, email addresses or in any other manner which amounts to infringement of the Plaintiffs’ ‘Dream11’ trademarks or passing off thereto, till the next date of hearing.

Sporta-Technologies-Pvt.-Ltd-Vs-Unfading-OPC-Private-Limited-Delhi-High-Court-converted

Enter your email address:

Subscribe to faceless complainces