Delhi High Court Restrains Individual from Utilizing 'Goocle' Mark Following Allegations of Trademark Infringement by Google

Delhi High Court Restrains Individual from Utilizing 'Goocle' Mark Following Allegations of Trademark Infringement by Google

The Delhi High Court has recently intervened to restrain an individual from using the 'Goocle' mark, preventing any usage of marks and trade names resembling those of 'Google' and 'GPay'.

Justice Sanjeev Narula issued the order in a commercial lawsuit brought forth by Google LLC against the defendant, P. Rajesh Ram, purportedly a partner in Goocle Housing LLP, Goocle Tamil News LLP, GIPAY Online Service LLP, and Goocle Trade Payment LLP.

Justice Narula determined that Ram's trademarks, namely "Gooogle," "Goocle," "Geogle," and "Gipay," bore a striking structural and phonetic resemblance to the trademarks "Google" and "GPay," differing by only one alphabet. Upon preliminary examination, these contested marks appeared deceptively similar to those of the plaintiff (Google). The defendants were found to be employing these contested marks and domain names across various sectors, including online news, advertising, television, banking, and payment services, which align with the plaintiff's business scope. Such usage was deemed likely to cause confusion among consumers.

The order was passed in the suit filed by Google, which said that it had come across the alleged infringement by the defendant during a routine search.

As per the lawsuit, the defendant had submitted multiple applications for the registration of the contested marks with the trademark registry. Presently, these applications are under objection.

Google, represented by its legal representatives, subsequently served a cease-and-desist notice to the respondent. In response, he assured to remove the content featuring the ‘Google’ trademark. However, he purportedly declined to discontinue the use of the “Goocle” mark.

Subsequently, Google discovered additional infringements, including several domain names utilizing ‘Goocle’. Consequently, Google sought relief from the court.

Recognizing a prima facie case in favor of Google, the Court concurred that in the event of a typographical error when entering the URL or a domain name, a potential user might be misled to the defendant's websites.

Furthermore, the court expressed the opinion that such usage of the marks also seems to be harmful to the distinctive character of the well-known trademark Google and thus, prima facie, constitutes infringement of the search engine's registered trademarks.

The Court stated that based on the aforementioned factors, the plaintiff has established a prima facie case in their favor, and they would suffer irreparable harm if an ex-parte ad-interim injunction is not granted. Additionally, the balance of convenience also favors the plaintiff and goes against the defendants.

Hence, the Court issued a restraining order against the defendants, prohibiting them from engaging in any services under the deceptive marks and trade names.

Additionally, the court ordered the suspension of the domain names registered by the defendant.

The Court also mandated the defendant to remove all online content, including social media pages, associated with the marks 'Goocle', 'Geogle', and 'Gipay'.