Delhi High Court Finds Dreamz11 Infringes on Dream11 Trademark
The Delhi High Court recently ruled in favour of the fantasy sports app Dream11, finding that the defendants Dreamz11
By: : Ajay Singh
Update: 2023-10-30 05:30 GMT
Delhi High Court Finds Dreamz11 Infringes on Dream11 Trademark The Delhi High Court recently ruled in favour of the fantasy sports app Dream11, finding that the defendants Dreamz11 (defendants Nos. 1 and 2) had a clear and deliberate intent to imitate Dream11. Because the competing marks were similar, used for identical services, and likely to confuse consumers, Justice C. Hari...
Delhi High Court Finds Dreamz11 Infringes on Dream11 Trademark
The Delhi High Court recently ruled in favour of the fantasy sports app Dream11, finding that the defendants Dreamz11 (defendants Nos. 1 and 2) had a clear and deliberate intent to imitate Dream11.
Because the competing marks were similar, used for identical services, and likely to confuse consumers, Justice C. Hari Shankar found that the defendants infringed Section 29(2)(b) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
Seeing that the defendants had also copied the plaintiffs' mark and website design, the Court concluded that the defendants were deliberately trying to confuse people into visiting their website instead of the plaintiffs'.
The Court also found that the defendants had committed passing off.
Using the test set out in the Re: Pianotist Application case, Justice Shankar found that there was a high likelihood of confusion between the competing marks, as both were used for fantasy games.
Initially, the owners of the Dream11 trademark and domain name (www.dream11.com) filed a lawsuit against the defendants for using a phonetically similar mark, Dreamz11.
By comparing the parties' domain names, websites, and Facebook pages, the plaintiffs showed that the defendants were blatantly copying them to provide the same service (fantasy sports). Defendant No. 1 was reportedly using images of cricketers Rishabh Pant, Rohit Sharma, and Hardik Pandya on its website, who were also part of the plaintiffs' group of players.
On January 24, 2023, the Court granted an ex parte ad interim injunction against defendant No. 3/GoDaddy, directing it to suspend access to the contesting defendants' website.
The defendants, Nos. 1 and 2, did not appear in Court throughout the proceedings. The Court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiffs, awarding them actual costs, the amount is to be determined later.
While advocate Rohan Seth appeared for the plaintiffs, Tanya Choudhary, advocate, represented defendant No.3 (GoDaddy.com LLC).