[ad_1]
matter of fact and matter
Priority has been given to the present application on behalf of the plaintiff seeking permission to file additional documents under Order 11 Rule 1(4) CPC.
The plaintiffs, if they wish to file additional documents at a later stage, will have to do so strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The application is disposed of.
IA 5074/2022 (Filing Original Documents)
The exemption is granted within four weeks from today, subject to the plaintiff filing the document in original, clear copies and with reasonable margin, which they wish to rely on.
The application is accepted and disposed of.
Let the suit be registered as a suit.
On filing the processing fee, issue summons to the respondent to return the same by all permissible means, on 11.07.2022. The summons shall state that the written statement shall be filed by the respondent within 30 days of the receipt of the summons. Along with the written statement, the respondent shall also file an affidavit of admission/denial of the plaintiff’s documents.
The counterclaim must be filed by the plaintiff within 15 days of the receipt of the written statement. An affidavit of admission/denial of documents filed by the defendant, along with the facsimile, shall be filed by the plaintiff. If any of the parties wish to inspect any document, the same will be sought and given within the time limit.
List before Joint Registrar for marking of demonstrations on 11.07.2022.
List before Court as on 04.08.2022.
IA 5072/2022 (Order 39 under Rule 1 and 2 CPC)
Issue notice to the Respondent through all prescribed modes, refundable on 04.08.2022.
The present application has been preferred by the plaintiff under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 for grant of ex parte ad-interim injunction.
Wadi No. 1 is a Private Limited Company with its Registered Office at Mumbai. Plaintiff No. 2 is a company incorporated in the United States and Plaintiff No. 1 is a wholly owned subsidiary of Plaintiff No. 2.
case overview
The plaint states that Wadi is a hugely popular and well-known fantasy sports platform launched in 2012 and is the official fantasy sports partner of the International Council of Cricket (ICC), the Campeonato Nacional de Liga de Premier División (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, International Hockey Federation (FIH), Hero Indian Super League and T20 Mumbai. The plaintiffs have also acquired official partner rights for international and domestic matches of the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) since 2019.
It is held by the Plaintiff that Plaintiff No. 2 is, inter alia, the registered owner of the Trademark Dream11 in India in several sections. It also registered the domain http://www.dream11.com On 17.03.2008. The details of registration are mentioned in para 7 and 8 of the suit. The registrations are valid and subsistence.
It is further stated that as on the present date more than 120 million users are playing fantasy, cricket, hockey, football etc. on the mobile and online platforms of the plaintiffs. Plaintiff’s rights over the trademark ‘Dream 11’ have been upheld by this Court in several lawsuits against third parties who have used variants of ‘Dream 11’ in their domain names such as ‘eDream11’, ‘dream11.bet’, ‘ it used. mydream11’, etc.
It is the plaintiff’s case that the defendant is the owner and operator of the website http://www.sattadream11.com Which appears to be registered on 01.11.2021. The Respondent appears to be offering sports betting services on its website, which by their nature are illegal in India. The Respondent is using the mark “Satta Dream11” not only as a word, but also the logo, the major part of which is the plaintiff’s trademark ‘Dream 11’, with the prefix “Satta”, which in Hindi language means and means gambling / betting and is therefore descriptive of the services of the defendant.
It averages that the unlawful nature of the defendant’s business is more apparent than his own claim on his website.
It has been argued by learned counsel for the plaintiff that by using the plaintiff’s trademark, the defendant is tarnishing the plaintiff’s reputation and image as much as the public is associating the plaintiff with the unlawful activities carried out by the defendant. The use of the trademark is expressly intended to ride on the goodwill and reputation that the plaintiffs enjoy in the respective field of fantasy sports.
After hearing learned counsel for the plaintiff, this Court is of the view that the plaintiff has made a prima facie case for grant of ex-parte ad-interim injunction. The balance of convenience is in favor of the plaintiffs and they are likely to suffer irreparable damages if the injunction, as prayed for, is not granted.
conclusion
Respondent, its directors, representatives and/or other(s) acting on his/her behalf shall be designated as a trademark, tradename, domain name or social media, email address of ‘sattadream11’ or any deceptively similar thereof version is prevented from being used. or in any other manner which is tantamount to infringing or passing on the plaintiff’s ‘Dream 11’ trademark by the next date of hearing.
sporta-technologies-pvt-ltd-vs-unfading-opc-pvt-ltd-delhi-high-court-convert
related
[ad_2]
Source link
Leave a Reply