The Delhi High Court had granted an injunction, in favour of e-commerce company Snapdeal, in relation to fifty rogue websites. The websites were infringing on its registered trademark.
Brief Facts of the Case
Snapdeal had filed a suit before the Court, after discovering that as many as 50 websites such as SNAPDEALLUCKY- DRAWS.ORG.IN, were inter alia degrading its goodwill. They were infringing on its registered trademark. These rogue websites had offered fraudulent prize schemes, lotteries, and lucky draws. They provided it in a manner that portrayed either emanation from Snapdeal or connection with it.
The plaintiff had, thus, wanted to protect its interest. They arrayed not only the domain registrars of the earlier mentioned rogue websites [i.e. defendant nos. 1 to 50] but also the Department of Telecommunications i.e. defendant no. 60, Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology i.e. defendant no. 61, and National Internet Exchange of India i.e. defendant no. 63, so that orders passed by this Court can be efficaciously enforced.
Contentions of the Parties
Snapdeal contended that these websites were damaging its commercial and statutory interests. It stated that they also ended up defrauding gullible customers by having them erroneously believe that the websites have connections with Snapdeal. Apart from the 50 named websites, John Doe was also made a defendant to the suit.
This was to represent all those whose details were not known yet but, were carrying on a similar illegal activity. The plaintiff had approached this Court during the issuance of an interim order dated 01.11.2018, titled Jasper Infotech Private Limited vs. Aadi Sins & Ors.
Court’s Observations
A single Judge Bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher had passed the order. The Court opined that a prima facie case had been made out in Snapdeal’s favour. This was after going through the submissions made by it and the balance of convenience was also tilted to its side. Continuation of such schemes would jeopardize not only the plaintiff’s interest but, that of the public at large too. Snapdeal had requested to show such rogue websites.
The Court ordered that if any information comes thereafter, qua them without having to file a fresh action. The Court considered the enormity of this issue. Thus, it granted the plaintiff liberty to approach the Court to array similar illegal websites as and when it comes to its notice. Advocate Swetashree Majumder had appeared for Snapdeal.
Court’s Decision
The Court had directed the authorities concerned to issue notification(s) to the Internet Service Providers. This was to block access to the 50 rogue websites. Order to suspend/block the domain names of those defendants registered with the domain registrars got announced. The plaintiff would follow the provisions of Order XXXIX Rule 3 of the CPC within 5 days of the receipt of a copy of this order. Defendant nos. 1 to 50, received injunctions from carrying on their activities either under the plaintiff’s trademark or any other, which is deceptive like the plaintiff’s trademark.
Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgments from the court. Follow us on Google News, Instagram, LinkedIn, Facebook & Twitter. You can also subscribe to our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.
