Court Protects Trademark Rights: Impleads New Defendants and Extends Interim Order

Court Protects Trademark Rights: Impleads New Defendants and Extends Interim Order

Introduction

The plaintiff filed an application seeking the impleadment of proposed defendant nos. 28 to 35 in the suit. The Delhi High Court has allowed the application and impleaded the new defendants, thereby protecting the plaintiff’s trademark rights.

Factual Background

The plaintiff’s trademark “MY11CIRCLE” has been infringed by various rogue websites/domain names/webpages. These websites allegedly lure users by misusing the plaintiff’s trademark and goodwill, then redirect them to different platforms offering unlawful betting games.

Procedural Background

The court had earlier granted an ex-parte ad interim injunction in favor of the plaintiff and against defendant nos. 1 to 14, restraining them from using the plaintiff’s trademark. The plaintiff was granted liberty to move an appropriate application in case it discovered any other infringing websites/domain names/webpages.

Issues

The primary issue before the court was whether the proposed defendant nos. 28 to 35 should be impleaded in the suit and whether the interim order should be extended to them.

Contentions of the Parties

Plaintiff’s Contentions:

• The proposed defendant nos. 28 to 32 are infringing the plaintiff’s trademark “MY11CIRCLE” by using identical/similar trademarks/domain names/logos.
• The proposed defendant nos. 33 to 35 are Domain Name Registrars (DNRs) of the proposed defendant nos. 28 to 32 and should be directed to disclose the Basic Subscriber Information and Account Registration details.

Reasoning & Analysis

The bench of Justice Saurabh Banerjee allowed the application for impleadment and extended the interim order to the new defendants, reasoning that the proposed defendants are proper and necessary parties to the suit. The court noted that the plaintiff has recently come across additional rogue infringing websites/domain names/webpages violating its rights.

Implications

The court’s order protects the plaintiff’s trademark rights and prevents further infringement by the new defendants. It also directs the Domain Name Registrars (DNRs) to disclose the Basic Subscriber Information and Account Registration details of defendant nos. 28 to 32.

Final Outcome

The court has:

• Impleaded the proposed defendant nos. 28 to 35 in the suit.
• Extended the interim order dated July 8, 2024, to the new defendants, restraining them from using the plaintiff’s trademark “MY11CIRCLE” or any other identical/similar trademark/domain name/logo.
• Directed the Domain Name Registrars (DNRs) to disclose the Basic Subscriber Information and Account Registration details of defendant nos. 28 to 32.
• Listed the matter before the court on October 13, 2025.

In this case, the plaintiff was represented by Ms. Mamta Rani Jha, Mr. Rohan Ahuja, Ms. Shruttima Ehersa, and Ms. Diya Viswanath, Advocates.