SPORTA TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR v. JOHN DOE & ORS, 2024 Delhi High Court Reinforcing Trademark Rights in the Digital Arena

Case Name	Sporta Technologies Private Limited & Anr v. John Doe & Ors, 2024.
Citation	CS(COMM) 21/2024 & I.A. 422/20242024 SCC OnLine Del 7666
Court	High Court of Delhi.
Decided On.	4th November 2024
Plaintiff	Sporta Technologies
Defendant	John Doe & Ors

INTRODUCTION

This case concerns a suit filed by Sporta Technologies Pvt. Limited and its affiliate, proprietors of the well-known Dream, 11 fantasy sports platform, seeking a permanent injunction against the operators of www.dream11lotery.com, and other parties for infringing their registered trademarks, passing off, copyrights infringement, and misleading the public through a lookalike websites and domain name mimicking Dream 11, the dispute revolves around the unauthorized replication of Dream 11’s distinctive marks, website features and branding creating consumer confusion and falsely suggesting an association with the plaintiff, thereby necessitating judicial relief for protection of intellectual property rights and prevention of further deception and commercial loss. 

IMPORTANT PROVISIONS

• Section 2(zb), Trademark Act, 1999: this provision defines the trademark and what constitutes infringement through unauthorized use of a registered mark. 
• Section 51, Copyrights Act, 1957: talks about the infringement of artistic and literary works, pertinent for the copying of the look, feel, and content of the infringing product.
• Order VII Rule 10, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: empowering the courts to pronounce judgment against a defendant who fails to file a written statement, expediting justice where the defendant defaults and the plaintiff’s case is unimpeachable. 

BRIEF FACTS  

The plaintiffs found that www.dream11lotery.com, an unapproved and nearly identical copy of the official Dream11 website (www.dream11.com), had been launched and run by an entity known as John Doe. In addition to using the trademarks “DREAM,” “DREAM11,” and variations like “DREAM11LOTERY,” as well as a confusingly similar domain name, this contested website fraudulently used the plaintiff’s email address, because the defendants replicated the Dream11 website’s artistic and design elements, the plaintiffs argued that these actions violated their copyright and caused infringement and passing off of their registered trademarks.

Plaintiff no.1 in this case is a pioneering provider of online fantasy sports platforms in India, its business model is based on allowing users to draft virtual teams, enter paid contests, and win based on real world sports results, Dream 11 has acquired significant reputation and recognition being the official fantasy sports partner for premier leagues and sporting associations, such as the ICC, LaLiga, IPL, BBL, CPL, NBA, PKL, FIH and others as well as obtaining central sponsorship rights from BCCI for various international and domestic cricket matches since 2019 and by June 2023, Dream 11 was also the official jersey sponsor for India’s men’s, women’s and u-19 cricket teams. 

The Dream 11 platform has received numerous awards, including the Red Herring Global 11 award, Red Herring Asia 100 award, and a Guinness World Records for hosting the largest online fantasy cricket matches during the IPL 2019 final with over 1 crore teams created.

Dream11 was regarded as India’s first gaming unicorn and had amassed a sizable user base of over 20 crore as of the filing date. The plaintiff’s trademarks and website features are unique and exclusively linked to Sporta Technologies Pvt. Ltd. because of the extensive and exclusive use of the Dream11 trademarks, which created a significant market presence.

When the plaintiffs found the contested website, www.dream11lotery.com, in December 2023, they compared it to their official website and purposefully duplicated a number of distinctive and artistic elements, which amounted to intentional misrepresentation and in order to mislead customers into thinking that the contested website was approved by, connected to, or supported by Dream11, this included stealing the color scheme, layout, content, and visual styleand the defendant’s actions also included running a lottery game, which raised the level of misunderstanding and the possibility of consumer fraud.

On discovering the infringement the plaintiffs immediately sough judicial remedies in the form of a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from using any of the plaintiff’s marks, trade dress or similar representations, they also sought an order for rendition of accounts, damages, and delivery up of infringing material, the suit included prayers that the infringing websites be suspended and locked and that relevant details of the domain registrant be revealed.

During the proceedings, the courts issued an interim injunction restraining the defendants use of the Dream 11 marks and directed the domain name registrar and governmental authorities to suspend the infringing website and reveal details of its registrants, despite service via email and registered post, the defendants failed to file any written statement in response to the plaint, nor did they contest the suit resulting in their being proceeded ex-parte, the absence of any defense gave further credence to the plaintiff’s claims and supported a swift disposal of the suit under the application procedural rules. 

ISSUES INVOLVED

1. Whether the defendant No. 1’s use of the marks “Dream 11” and the domain name www.dream11lotery.com amounts to infringement of the plaintiff’s registered trademarks under the Act, 1999? 
2. Whether the defendant’s duplication of the look, feel, content, and artistic features of the plaintiff’s website constitutes copyright infringement and passing off of the plaintiff’s goods and services? 
3. Whether the court is empowered to decide the suit and grant relief under Order VIII Rule 10 of CPC, in the absence of a written statement or defense from the defendants? 

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY PETITIONERS

• According to the counsels representing the petitioners in order to prove their case of copyright violation, passing off, and trademark infringement against the defendants, Sporta Technologies Pvt. Ltd. and its affiliate put forth thorough and convincing arguments, the core of their submissions centered on the uniqueness, extensive use, and widespread recognition of the “Dream11” mark and associated trademarks, as well as the deliberate, unauthorized replication of their website and brand identity by the defendants.
•  The plaintiffs emphasized that Sporta Technologies Pvt. Ltd. is the owner of the registered trademarks “Dream11” and other associated marks, which have gained substantial goodwill and distinctiveness through consistent and widespread market use since 2012, including the Indian Premier League (IPL), the National Basketball Association (NBA), the International Cricket Council (ICC) tournaments, the Kabaddi Premier League, and other elite sports leagues and events were highlighted, along with the many prestigious sponsorships and partnerships that were obtained with official partner rights from organizations like the BCCI.
• The massive commercial and cultural impact of the Dream11 brand was demonstrated by the extensive advertising campaigns, live television broadcasts, jersey sponsorship of Indian cricket teams, and the Guinness World Record for the largest online fantasy cricket match, and the plaintiffs contended that because their trademarks have come to be uniquely associated with their services, they are legally protected under the Trade Marks Act.
• Additionally, by operating www.dream11lotery.com, a website that was nearly identical to the plaintiffs’ official site in terms of design, content, color schemes, and overall look and feel, the plaintiffs brought attention to the defendant’s flagrant acts of infringement, further they stressed that in addition to the trademark “Dream11,” the defendants had also taken a copycat domain name and confusingly similar variations, like “DREAM11LOTERY.” 
• The plaintiffs claimed that the defendants intentionally tried to mislead and confuse the public into thinking that Dream11 was connected to or supported their website, this misrepresentations, the plaintiffs argued clearly constituted passing off which detrimentally affected their brand’s reputation and goodwill and created unfair competition. 
• By pointing out how the defendants had replicated a number of distinctive and artistic elements of their website features that are protected as original artistic works under the Copyright Act the plaintiffs also made compelling arguments regarding copyright infringement, and they argued that copying a website’s design, user interface, and other innovative components increased the risk of consumer deception and strengthened their case for fair and legal remedies.
• Despite the defendants’ failure to submit a written statement or challenge the suit, the plaintiffs urged the court to proceed with a merit-based decision on procedural grounds, order VIII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which gives the court the authority to render a decision in cases where the defendant defaults and the plaintiff’s claim is initially unassailable, was one of the pertinent rules and precedents they cited. 
• The plaintiffs argued that the documentary evidence was clear-cut and that no additional evidence was needed, which supported dismissing the lawsuit without postponing trials or ex parte testimony.
• In conclusion, the plaintiffs sought a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from any further use of the infringing marks and trade dress, including an order for the suspension and locking of the impugned website, rendition of accounts for damages suffered, monetary compensation, and costs of the litigation. 

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY RESPONDENTS  

• The counsels for the respondents argued that, according to the established legal mandate, all issues pertaining to trademark infringement and company management disputes are solely the responsibility of specialized forums, particularly the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) in company law cases and the designated authorities for intellectual property disputes.
• The defendants argued that, particularly in cases where statutory remedies are available, civil courts lack jurisdiction over such matters.
•  Moreover, despite multiple opportunities and formal service of the suit papers, the defendants failed to file written statements; consequently, the right to do so was closed. This procedural default was challenged by arguing that no useful purpose would be served by conducting a trial when the defense was not put forward, and only summary disposal on the record deemed appropriate. 
• All significant claims of infringement and misrepresentation were refuted by the defendants they also denied that their website, www.dream11lotery.com, was a purposeful mirror or copy of the plaintiffs’ official Dream11 website, they maintained that unless there is proof of malicious intent and significant confusion, a name or design similarity alone does not automatically amount to passing off or trademark/copyright infringement. 
• The defendants contended that there was insufficient proof to demonstrate that their website actually confused the market or infringed upon the plaintiffs’ well-established goodwill, it was also contended that the plaintiff’s assertion of passing off was unfounded because they failed to show unambiguous evidence of consumer deception, loss of goodwill, or direct financial hard, they specifically maintained that the alleged similarities were generic or otherwise within the bounds of permitted competition in the digital domain. 
• The defendants contended that the proceedings shouldn’t be needlessly prolonged, citing precedents (such as those outlined in Disney Enterprises Inc. v. Balraj Muttneja and Cross Fit LLC v. RTB Gym), they argued that the court should avoid trial and ex parte evidence and expedite the case under Order VIII Rule 10 of the CPC to ensure judicial economy because they had not submitted a written statement and had no intention of contesting the suit further.
• It was stated that there was no specific, reliable evidence to back up any claims for actual damages, compensation, or costs, and in summary, the defendants argued that the plaintiff’s demands were out of proportion to the facts presented in the record, they also contested the evidence of consumer deceit and loss of goodwill, argued that the court lacked jurisdiction, denied substantive trademark and copyright infringement, and urged the court to avoid drawn-out proceedings and end the suit quickly in light of the plaintiffs’ default and non-contestation.

JUDGEMENT

• The Hon’ble Court started by The plaintiffs’ status as registered proprietors of the Dream11 trademark and the substantial documentary evidence demonstrating ongoing, exclusive, and widespread commercial use were the first things the court looked at when it began its reasoning and due to the plaintiffs’ long-standing market presence as well as a number of well-known sporting collaborations, sponsorships, and media appearances, it was observed that their mark “Dream11” and related trade dress had grown extremely distinctive. 
• The defendant was found to have satisfied the legal test for infringement under the Trade Marks Act, 1999, by unlawfully adopting and using the marks “DREAM,” “DREAM11,” “DREAM11LOTERY,” and specifically the domain www.dream11lotery.com, all of which were strikingly like the plaintiffs’ mark.
• The court clarified that the overall look and feel of the defendant’s website was a near replica of the plaintiff’s site, which was calculated to deceive and confuse the public into a mistaken belief of association or endorsement with Dream 11. 
• Because it involved intentional copying to violate the plaintiffs’ goodwill and deceive customers, the court stressed that such behavior went beyond simple technical infringement and constituted classic passing off. Given that it specifically targeted the same demographic of customers who would participate in online fantasy sports, there was a real chance of confusion.
• The court determined that the copying of the visual layout, color scheme, and content was not accidental but rather a dishonest attempt to profit unfairly from the plaintiffs’ well-established reputation.
• The court then addressed the copyright infringement claim and according to the findings, the plaintiffs’ rights as owners of original artistic works under the Copyright Act of 1957 had been violated since a number of distinctive and creative elements of the official Dream11 website had been illegally duplicated on the defendant’s platform, this further aggravated the deliberate nature of the infringement and reinforced the case for protective relief. 
• Regarding procedural matters, the court observed that the defendants did not submit a credible defense or submit a written statement in spite of the summons being served via registered mail and email, and consequently, the suit proceeded ex parte, and the defendants’ right to submit a written statement was closed. 
• The court made extensive use of case law and legislative intent when interpreting Order VIII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which gives the court the authority to rule against a defendant who does not dispute the claim, so long as the documentary evidence is sufficient and unimpeachable.
• The court explained that when the plaintiff’s case is supported by the record alone, ex parte evidence may be waived in cases where the defendants have defaulted and the goal is to avoid protracted proceedings and guarantee prompt justice, particularly in business cases governed by the 2015 Commercial Courts Act.
• The court noted that the plaintiffs’ evidence proved their claim beyond a reasonable doubt and found no contested factual issues in the plaintiff’s case, and in order to prevent future infringement and enable redress for the wrongs suffered, the court decided to grant the plaintiffs a permanent injunction that would prevent the defendants from using the infringing marks going forward.
• Additionally, the court ordered the impugned website to be suspended and locked, and ordered that the plaintiffs be awarded nominal costs of ₹1 lakh.

CONCLUSION

The Delhi HC, after thoroughly examining the evidence and legal arguments, concluded that Sporta Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Had established a clear case of trademark infringement, passing off, and copyright violation against the defendants, the court found that the defendants unauthorized use of deceptively similar marks and replication of the Dream 11 website was clearly intended to mislead consumers and unlawfully capitalize on the plaintiff’s substantial goodwill and reputation. 

Accordingly, the court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff, granting a permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from further infringement, ordering the suspension of the impugned website, and awarding the nominal costs. This decision reaffirms the judiciary’s commitment to robust protection of IP rights and sets a wrong precedent for swift relief in uncontested cases of digital and commercial IP infringement. 

This article has been written by Mayur Shrestha (Presidency University Bengaluru School of Law).