Delhi High Court Restrains Rogue Websites from Infringing on 'BETWAY' Trademark

Delhi High Court Restrains Rogue Websites from Infringing on 'BETWAY' Trademark

Introduction

The Delhi High Court has restrained several rogue websites from infringing on Merryvale Limited's trademark "BETWAY". The court allowed Merryvale's application for an interim injunction against the newly impleaded defendants.

Factual Background

Merryvale Limited filed a lawsuit against John Doe and others, alleging trademark infringement. The plaintiff claimed that the defendants were using its trademark "BETWAY" to misrepresent and defraud the general public.

Procedural Background

The court had previously granted an injunction order against some of the defendants. The plaintiff then filed an application to extend the injunction to the newly impleaded defendants.

Issues

1. Trademark Infringement: Whether the defendants were infringing on Merryvale Limited's trademark "BETWAY".

2. Interim Injunction: Whether the court should grant an interim injunction against the newly impleaded defendants.

Contentions of the Parties

Plaintiff's Contentions:

• The defendants are rogue websites and are carrying on activities identical to previously restrained defendants.
• The defendants are infringing on the plaintiff's trademark and misrepresenting to the general public.

Reasoning & Analysis

The bench of Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora considered the submissions of the plaintiff and perused the application. It found that the defendants were using the plaintiff's mark to misrepresent to the general public.

Decision

The court extended the injunction order to the newly impleaded defendants, restraining them from directly or indirectly using the mark "BETWAY" or any deceptively similar variation thereof.

Directions

• Blocking of Websites: The court directed the defendants to lock/suspend the domain names and provide information of the domain registrants.
• Notification to Block Websites: The court directed MEITY and DOT to issue necessary notifications to block/delete/remove access to the websites/URLs.
• Compliance Affidavit: The defendants were directed to file their compliance affidavit within two weeks.

Implications

The court's decision highlights its efforts to protect intellectual property rights and prevent trademark infringement.

In this case the plaintiff was represented by Mr. Moazzam Khan and Prince Kumar, Advocates. Meanwhile the defendant was represented by Mr. Ripudaman Bhardwaj, CGSC with Mr. Kushagra Kumar and Mr. Amit Kumar Rana, Advs. for UOI and Ms. Nidhi Raman, CGSC with Mr. Om Ram and Mr. Mayank Sansanwal, Advs. for D-9 and 10.