Delhi High Court Directs Blocking of 50 Rouge Websites Infringing Snapdeal Trademark

Must Read

Himachal Pradesh High Court Supports Promotion Based on Seniority of Post Rather Based on the Eligibility Test

In the case of Ramesh Chand Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Others, the petitioner, reached the court as...

NCDRC Dismisses PIL against Urologist, Holy Family Hospital, Says Mode Of Treatment Or Skill Differs From Doctor To Doctor

The National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (NCDRC) dismissed a petition against Holy Family Hospital and a Urologist, alleging negligence...

Himachal Pradesh High Court Disposes Suit for Possession and Permanent Prohibitory Injunction Due To Mutual Consent

In the case of Parveen Kumar vs Smt. Vijay Laxmi and Ors, the Petitioner, Parveen had filed a suit for declaration,...

Supreme Court Appoints Committee To Examine Arbitrariness of Sealing of Resorts in Elephant Corridor, Tamil Nadu

A Full Bench headed by the Chief Justice of India, in the matter of Hospitality Association of Mudumalai V. In...

Madhya Pradesh High Court Rules That Export Ban on N95 Masks & PPE Kits Does Not Violate Fundamental Right of Traders

The Madhya Pradesh High Court held that the formulation and regulation of trade policies were within the subjects of...

Delhi High Court Issues Notice To Two Pleas Filed Praying for Recognition of Same-Sex Marriage

The Court heard two writ petitions which urged that the Special Marriage Act and the Foreign Marriage Act be...

Follow us

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, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & 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.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

Himachal Pradesh High Court Supports Promotion Based on Seniority of Post Rather Based on the Eligibility Test

In the case of Ramesh Chand Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Others, the petitioner, reached the court as he was aggrieved by the...

NCDRC Dismisses PIL against Urologist, Holy Family Hospital, Says Mode Of Treatment Or Skill Differs From Doctor To Doctor

The National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (NCDRC) dismissed a petition against Holy Family Hospital and a Urologist, alleging negligence in diagnosing the septicemia and...

Himachal Pradesh High Court Disposes Suit for Possession and Permanent Prohibitory Injunction Due To Mutual Consent

In the case of Parveen Kumar vs Smt. Vijay Laxmi and Ors, the Petitioner, Parveen had filed a suit for declaration, possession and a permanent prohibitory...

Supreme Court Appoints Committee To Examine Arbitrariness of Sealing of Resorts in Elephant Corridor, Tamil Nadu

A Full Bench headed by the Chief Justice of India, in the matter of Hospitality Association of Mudumalai V. In Defence of Environment and Animals...

Madhya Pradesh High Court Rules That Export Ban on N95 Masks & PPE Kits Does Not Violate Fundamental Right of Traders

The Madhya Pradesh High Court held that the formulation and regulation of trade policies were within the subjects of the Central Government. Any reasonable...

Delhi High Court Issues Notice To Two Pleas Filed Praying for Recognition of Same-Sex Marriage

The Court heard two writ petitions which urged that the Special Marriage Act and the Foreign Marriage Act be interpreted to also apply to...

Supreme Court Allows Appeal Challenging Allahabad High Court Order Granting Interim Bail on Medical Grounds

An appeal was filed before the Supreme Court, challenging the Judgment & Order of the Allahabad High Court in the matter of State of U.P...

Bombay High Court Allows Petition Seeking Lawyers and Legal Clerks To Travel in Local Trains

The present hearing arose out of a batch of Public Interest Litigations that was filed in the Bombay High Court to permit the members...

Provisions for Retirement of Teachers Must Be Read With the Larger Interest of Students in Mind: Supreme Court

Supreme Court in Navin Chandra Dhoundiyal v State of Uttarakhand reinstated the appellants to their position as Professor on basis of re-employment till the...

Parties Cannot Deny Specific Performance Merely Due To Delay: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court, in Ferrodous Estate v P Gopirathnam, revisited the law on the specific performance of a contract. It reiterated that mere delay...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -