Dream11 vs. Dreamz11: Delhi High Court Grants Trademark Protection To Dream11 Owner

The Delhi High Court recently decreed a suit brought by owner of fantasy sports app ‘Dream11’, observing that the contesting defendants (defendant Nos. 1 and 2) had a “clear and transparent intent” to imitate the plaintiffs.Given the similarities between the competing marks, the fact that they were being used for identical services, and the likelihood of confusion in the minds of consumers, Justice C. Hari Shankar held that a case of infringement u/s 29(2)(b) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 was clearly made out.Noting further that the contesting defendants had identically copied the plaintiffs’ mark as well as adopted the look and feel of their website, the court opined that “the defendants are consciously seeking to confuse persons into accessing the defendant’s website instead of the plaintiff.”As such, a case of passing off was also held to have been made out.Applying the test laid down in Re: Pianotist Application, Justice Shankar emphasised that there was “every likelihood of confusion” between the competing marks as both were applied in the context of fantasy games.Initially, the plaintiffs, being registered proprietors of ‘dream11’ marks and holder of domain ‘www.dream11.com’, had filed the suit aggrieved by contesting defendants’ use of a phonetically similar mark – ‘dreamz11’.On the strength of a comparison between the parties’ domain names, websites and Facebook pages, the plaintiffs alleged that the contesting defendants were brazenly copying them to provide identical services (fantasy sports). Reportedly, defendant No. 1 was found to be using images of cricketers Rishabh Pant, Rohit Sharma, and Hardik Pandya on its website, who were part of plaintiffs’ group of players.In view of the facts and circumstances, the court had granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction on January 24, 2023, directing defendant No.3/GoDaddy to inter-alia suspend access to the contesting defendants’ website.Defendant Nos.1 and 2 remained unrepresented throughout. The suit was decreed with actual costs (to be determined).Mr. Rohan Seth, Advocate appeared for plaintiffsMs. Tanya Choudhary, Advocate appeared for defendant No.3 (GoDaddy.com LLC)Case Title: Sporta Technologies Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. v. Dreamz11 and Anr.Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1033Click Here To Read/Download Order

Dream11 vs. Dreamz11: Delhi High Court Grants Trademark Protection To Dream11 Owner

Debby Jain

Tags