Full Judgment Text
$~22
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
Date of Decision: 04 November, 2024
+ CS(COMM) 22/2024 & I.A. No. 427/2024
SPORTA TECHNOLOGIES PVT LTD AND ANR. .....Plaintiffs
Through: Mr. Rohan Kumar Seth with
Ms. Shilpi Sinha, Advocates.
(M): 8576076592
9911167179
Email: litigation@fiduslawchambers.com
versus
ADITYA YADAV AND ORS. .....Defendants
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MINI PUSHKARNA
MINI PUSHKARNA, J (ORAL)
1. The present suit has been filed for permanent injunction restraining
infringement of registered trademarks, passing off, infringement of
copyright, rendition of accounts, damages and delivery up.
2. The case, as canvassed by the plaintiffs, is as follows:
2.1 The present suit has been filed by the plaintiffs in relation to their
registered trademarks as mentioned below:
Signature Not Verified
CS(COMM) 22/2024 Page 1 of 11
Digitally Signed
By:AMAN UNIYAL
Signing Date:07.11.2024
19:17:17
2.2 The defendant no. 1 is the proprietor of the domain hmriworld.com
and the sub domain „dream11.hmriworld.com‟ (impugned sub-domain). The
present suit has been filed on account of adoption and use of the mark
'Dream 11' as a part of its impugned sub-domain by the defendant no. 1,
which amounts to infringement and passing off of the plaintiffs' Dream 11
trademarks.
Signature Not Verified
CS(COMM) 22/2024 Page 2 of 11
Digitally Signed
By:AMAN UNIYAL
Signing Date:07.11.2024
19:17:17
2.3 The defendant no.2 is the Domain Name Registrar (“DNR”) of the
defendant no. 1's domain 'hmriworld.com'.
2.4 Defendant no. 3 is the Department of Telecommunications (“DoT”)
and defendant no. 4 is the Ministry of Electronics and Information
Technology (“MeitY”), who have been impleaded as defendants for the
limited purpose of ensuring compliance with the orders of this Court.
2.5 Plaintiff no. 1 was incorporated with a view to serve as a one stop
provider of a number of online fantasy sport leagues. A fantasy sport league
is an online multi-player game where participants draft virtual teams of real
players of a professional sport. These virtual drafted teams get points based
on the performance of the players in actual games. Each player playing on
the fantasy sports platform has to create a team with a maximum budget of
100 credits. The team then earns points based on real life matches and then
the team competes with other such teams in the various contests offered by
the plaintiffs on the platform. For each real-life match, there are multiple
contests which a fantasy player can join, and each contest has an entry fee.
The top teams of each contest are then rewarded monetarily. The amount
earned is credited to the fantasy player's bank account upon his/her
withdrawal request.
2.6 The plaintiffs launched its hugely popular fantasy sports platform under
the trademark Dream11 in 2012. Thereafter, and until the present date, the
plaintiffs have been 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 (PKL),
Signature Not Verified
CS(COMM) 22/2024 Page 3 of 11
Digitally Signed
By:AMAN UNIYAL
Signing Date:07.11.2024
19:17:17
International Hockey Federation (FIH), Hero Indian Super League (ISL) and
T20 Mumbai. The plaintiff has also acquired Official partner rights of Board
of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI), international and domestic matches
since 2019.
2.7 The popularity of the fantasy sports played on the plaintiffs‟ platform
Dream 11 is further evidenced by the various awards won by them such as
the Red Herring Global 100 Award and the Red Herring Asia 100 Award.
The plaintiff no. 1 is also the first Indian gaming company to become a
unicorn in the year 2019. Additionally, the plaintiffs' have also won a
Guinness World Record for the 'largest online fantasy cricket match' in the
year 2019, when a total of 1,03,17,928 teams were created by users on the
Dream 11 platform, during the IPL final between Mumbai Indians (MI) and
the Chennai Super Kings (CSK).
2.8 The plaintiffs signed a Central Sponsorship contract with the Board of
Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) for the Indian Premier League for four
years starting with IPL 2019 season, which was widely publicized in the
press. The plaintiffs were the title sponsors of IPL, 2020 which was played
in UAE and apart from actively promoting their brand Dream11 on player
jerseys and at the grounds, the plaintiffs' advertisements were broadcast in
the breaks during the live matches. Apart from the above, television
advertisements for Dream11 were broadcast throughout the 2019, 2020 and
2021 season of the IPL. In June, 2023, the plaintiffs became the official
jersey sponsor of the Indian men's, women's and Under-19 cricket team. As
a sponsor, the Dream11 logo is printed on the front of the jersey.
2.9 The plaintiffs also have a long-term Official Fantasy Sports provider
deal with the International Cricket Council for all the ICC tournaments. The
Signature Not Verified
CS(COMM) 22/2024 Page 4 of 11
Digitally Signed
By:AMAN UNIYAL
Signing Date:07.11.2024
19:17:17
said partnership also featured the ICC Men's Cricket World Cup 2019 with
daily contests as well as season long fantasy league sports. Television
advertisements for Dream11 were also broadcasted during the live telecast
of all the World Cup matches.
2.10 As on date, the plaintiffs' mobile and online platform have over 20
crore users playing fantasy cricket football, hockey, kabaddi, baseball,
handball and basketball, with more than 1,000 contests being organized on a
daily basis.
2.11 Apart from the stand-alone registered trademark „Dream11‟, the
plaintiffs‟ Dream 11 trademarks have a distinctive character and are capable
of distinguishing the services of the plaintiffs from others. Such exclusive
and extensive use of the Dream 11 trademarks by the plaintiffs has ensured
that the said trademarks are associated and connected with the plaintiffs
alone.
2.12 The defendant no. 1 is not only guilty of infringing the plaintiffs‟
registered trademarks, but also of passing off its identical services, as those
associated, endorsed or related to the plaintiffs. Thus, the present suit has
come to be filed.
th
3. This Court notes that vide order dated 08 January, 2024, an interim
injunction was passed in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendant
no.1, in the following manner:
“xxx xxx xxx
10. Accordingly, till the next date, defendant No. 1, its representatives
and others acting for, and on its behalf, are restrained from using the
marks “DREAM11” and in the sub-domain name
„dream11.hmriworld.com‟, or any other deceptively similar variant of
the Plaintiffs‟ „Dream11‟ trademarks, as a trademark, trade name,
domain name, sub-domain name, as part of their email addresses or
Signature Not Verified
CS(COMM) 22/2024 Page 5 of 11
Digitally Signed
By:AMAN UNIYAL
Signing Date:07.11.2024
19:17:17
in any other manner which amounts to infringement of the Plaintiffs‟
„Dream11‟ mark.
11. Defendant No. 2 is directed to reveal the complete address and
contact details of the Registrant of the domain hmriworld.com.
12. Defendant Nos. 3 and 4 (DOT and MEITY) are directed to issue a
notification calling upon various internet service providers to suspend
access to the sub-domain/ website of defendant No. 1 being
dream11.hmriworld.com., within a period of 48 hours of receiving the
copy of this order.
xxx xxx xxx”
4. Subsequently, the defendant no.2, i.e., the Domain Name Registrar
revealed the details of the Domain Name Registrant, and pursuant thereto,
th
an amended Memo of Parties dated 06 March, 2024, was filed.
th
5. Order dated 12 August, 2024 shows that defendant no. 1 was served,
th
via Email on 9 April, 2024. Defendant no. 1 was also served by way of
th
ordinary means vide order dated 24 January, 2024. Further, defendant nos.
th
2 to 4 were served, via ordinary means on 24 January, 2024. The defendant
th
no. 2 was additionally served, via email on 20 February, 2024. However,
no written statements have been filed on behalf of the defendants, despite
lapse of the statutory period.
6. Accordingly, the right to file written statements by the defendants,
already stands closed. In view thereof, the defendants are proceeded ex-
parte .
7. Learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs submits that his main prayer
is only against the defendant no.1, who has been indulging in infringing the
registered trademarks of the plaintiffs and the related logos by using the
defendants‟ sub-domain „dream11.hmriworld.com‟. The impugned sub-
domain, „dream11.hmriworld.com‟, directs to a website of the defendant no.
Signature Not Verified
CS(COMM) 22/2024 Page 6 of 11
Digitally Signed
By:AMAN UNIYAL
Signing Date:07.11.2024
19:17:17
1, where it is extensively using the plaintiffs‟ trademarks DREAM 11,
and
. In addition, the defendant no. 1 is also
using the original artistic images on the impugned sub-domain, that have
been created by the plaintiffs and uploaded on its Google play store and
Apple App Store listings. The entire purpose of the impugned sub-domain is
to direct users looking for plaintiffs‟ website, to the defendant no. 1‟s
website, thereby cashing on the plaintiffs‟ goodwill and reputation.
8. Since no written statement has been filed on behalf of defendant no.1,
which is the party against whom the prayer is sought in the plaint, this Court
is empowered to and thus exercises its power under Order VIII Rule 10 of
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”).
9. This Court notes that no useful purpose shall be served in putting the
matter to trial as no defense has come forward on behalf of defendant no.1.
10. Holding that the time of court should not be wasted in directing ex-
parte evidence to be led when no written statement has come to be filed, this
1
Court in Cross Fit LLC versus RTB Gym and Fitness Centre , has held as
follows:
“xxx xxx xxx
10. It is noticed that, despite service, the Defendant has chosen not to
th
appear. As recorded in order dated 15 February, 2022, the affidavit
th
of service dated 14 December, 2021 has been filed by the Plaintiff
which shows that the Defendant has been served by speed post, as
also, by email. Accordingly, the Defendant was proceeded against ex
parte on the said date. In addition, it is noted that the Registry has
also issued summons to the Defendant.
11. In view of the above, following the judgment in Disney
Enterprises Inc. v. Balraj Muttneja [CS (OS) 3466/2012 decided on
1
2022 SCC OnLine Del 2788
Signature Not Verified
CS(COMM) 22/2024 Page 7 of 11
Digitally Signed
By:AMAN UNIYAL
Signing Date:07.11.2024
19:17:17
th
20 February, 2014], this Court is of the opinion that no ex
parte evidence would be required in this matter. The same has been
reiterated by the Court in S. Oliver Bernd Freier GMBH & CO.
KG v. Jaikara Apparels [(2014) 210 DLT 381], as also, in United
Coffee House v. Raghav Kalra [(2013) 55 PTC 414 (Del)]. The
relevant observations from the judgment in Disney Enterprises
Inc. (supra), are as under:
“3. Though the defendants entered appearance through
their counsel on 01.02.2013 but remained unrepresented
thereafter and failed to file a written statement as well. The
defendants were thus directed to be proceeded ex-parte vide
order dated 04.10.2013and the plaintiffs permitted to file
affidavits by way of ex-parte evidence.
4. The plaintiffs, despite having been granted sufficient
time and several opportunities, have failed to get their
affidavits for leading ex-parte evidence on record. However,
it is not deemed expedient to further await the same and
allow this matter to languish, for the reason that I have
in Indian Performing Rights Society Ltd. v. Gauhati Town
Club 2013 SCC OnLine Del 382 held that where the
defendant is ex parte and the material before the Court is
sufficient to allow the claim of the plaintiff, the time of the
Court should not be wasted in directing ex parte evidence to
be recorded and which mostly is nothing buta repetition of
the contents of the plaint. ”
xxx xxx xxx”
(Emphasis Supplied)
11. On a perusal of the submissions and the documents placed on record, it
is evident that the plaintiffs are the registered proprietor of the trademark
“DREAM 11”. The documents on record clearly manifest that the sub-
domain of the defendant no. 1 fully subsumes the plaintiffs‟ registered
„Dream 11‟ trademark. The defendant no. 1 has added the plaintiffs‟
registered trademark in its domain „hmriworld.com‟ as a sub-domain, to
make it „dream11hmriworld.com‟. Thus, the defendant no. 1 is attracting
users to its „hmriworld‟ platform, through its impugned sub-domain, which
Signature Not Verified
CS(COMM) 22/2024 Page 8 of 11
Digitally Signed
By:AMAN UNIYAL
Signing Date:07.11.2024
19:17:17
is an act of infringement of the plaintiffs‟ „Dream 11‟ trademarks. The acts
of the defendants are likely to result in initial interest confusion on the part
of the consumers, which is classified as a form of passing off. The impugned
sub-domain leads to a website that purports to be a digital marketing and
website development agency. Therefore, the defendant no. 1 is fully aware
of the consequences and benefits of pre-pending the plaintiffs‟ „Dream 11‟
trademark as a sub-domain to its main website, and is doing so consciously
to generate traffic on its own website.
12. Thus, it is evident that there is likelihood that the present and future
members of the relevant class of consumers, will be misled that the
defendant no.1 is associated/affiliated with the plaintiffs and the services
provided by them are in furtherance of that of the plaintiffs.
13. This Court further notes that the defendant no.1, despite service has
failed to contest the case by not filing a written statement and no plausible
defense has been taken by defendant no.1.
14. Thus, holding that Courts can invoke the provisions of Order VIII Rule
10 CPC, to curb dilatory tactics by the defendants in not filing the written
statement and pronounce judgment against the defendants, a Coordinate
Bench of this Court, in Nirog Pharma Pvt. Ltd. versus Umesh Gupta &
2
Anr. , has held as follows:
“xxx xxx xxx
11. Order VIII Rule 10 has been inserted by the legislature to
expedite the process of justice. The courts can invoke its provisions
to curb dilatory tactic, often resorted to by defendants, by not filing
the written statement by pronouncing judgment against it. At the
same time, the courts must be cautious and judge the contents of the
plaint and documents on record as being of an unimpeachable
2
2016 SCC OnLine Del 5961
Signature Not Verified
CS(COMM) 22/2024 Page 9 of 11
Digitally Signed
By:AMAN UNIYAL
Signing Date:07.11.2024
19:17:17
character, not requiring any evidence to be led to prove its contents.
The Supreme Court in C.N Ramappa Gowda v. C.C.
Chandregowda, (2012) 5 SCC 265 had held as under:
“25. We find sufficient assistance from the apt
observations of this Court extracted hereinabove which has
held that the effect [Ed. : It would seem that it is the purpose
of the procedure contemplated under Order 8 Rule 10 CPC
upon non-filing of the written statement to expedite the trial
and not penalise the defendant. ] of non-filing of the written
statement and proceeding to try the suit is clearly to
expedite the disposal of the suit and is not penal in nature
wherein the defendant has to be penalised for non-filing of
the written statement by trying the suit in a mechanical
manner by passing a decree. We wish to reiterate that in a
case where written statement has not been filed, the court
should be a little more cautious in proceeding under Order
8 Rule 10 CPC and before passing a judgment, it must
ensure that even if the facts set out in the plaint are treated
to have been admitted, a judgment and decree could not
possibly be passed without requiring him to prove the facts
pleaded in the plaint .
26. It is only when the court for recorded reasons is
fully satisfied that there is no fact which needs to be proved
at the instance of the plaintiff in view of the deemed
admission by the defendant, the court can conveniently pass
a judgment and decree against the defendant who has not
filed the written statement. But, if the plaint itself indicates
that there are disputed questions of fact involved in the case
arising from the plaint itself giving rise to two versions, it
would not be safe for the court to record an ex parte
judgment without directing the plaintiff to prove the facts so
as to settle the factual controversy . In that event, the ex parte
judgment although may appear to have decided the suit
expeditiously, it ultimately gives rise to several layers of
appeal after appeal which ultimately compounds the delay in
finally disposing of the suit giving rise to multiplicity of
proceedings which hardly promotes the cause of speedy trial.
27. However, if the court is clearly of the view that the
plaintiff's case even without any evidence is prima facie
unimpeachable and the defendant's approach is clearly a
dilatory tactic to delay the passing of a decree, it would be
justified in appropriate cases to pass even an uncontested
Signature Not Verified
CS(COMM) 22/2024 Page 10 of 11
Digitally Signed
By:AMAN UNIYAL
Signing Date:07.11.2024
19:17:17
decree . What would be the nature of such a case ultimately
will have to be left to the wisdom and just exercise of
discretion by the trial court who is seized of the trial of the
suit.”
(Emphasis Supplied)
xxx xxx xxx
28. The present suit is also a commercial suit within the definition of
the Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial
Appellate Division of High Courts Act, 2015 and it was the clear
intention of the legislature that such cases should be decided
expeditiously and should not be allowed to linger on. Accordingly, if
the defendant fails to pursue his case or does so in a lackadaisical
manner by not filing his written statement, the courts should invoke
the provisions of Order VIII Rule 10 to decree such cases .
xxx xxx xxx”
(Emphasis Supplied)
15. Accordingly, decree is passed in favour of the plaintiffs and against
the defendant no. 1 in terms of Paragraph 42 (a) to (d).
16. Considering the submissions made before this Court and the
documents placed on record, this Court is of the view that the ends of justice
shall be met if cost of ₹ 1,00,000/- is imposed upon the defendant no. 1.
17. Accordingly, the defendant no. 1 shall pay a cost of ₹ 1,00,000/- to
the plaintiffs within a period of six weeks from today.
18. Suit is decreed in the aforesaid terms. Registry is directed to draw up
the decree sheet.
19. With the aforesaid directions, the present suit, along with pending
application stands disposed of.
MINI PUSHKARNA, J
NOVEMBER 4, 2024
c
Signature Not Verified
CS(COMM) 22/2024 Page 11 of 11
Digitally Signed
By:AMAN UNIYAL
Signing Date:07.11.2024
19:17:17