The Delhi High Court issued a permanent injunction in favor of Dream11, the plaintiff, preventing the defendant from using the "Dreamz11" mark. The court's decision was based on the defendant's deliberate and intentional creation of a website and mobile application that closely resembled those of Dream11, which could potentially lead to confusion among consumers. 

The Court granted the Plaintiff's petition against the defendant's website and mobile app, which exhibited a remarkably close resemblance. The Court took note of the satisfaction of both the Pianotist test and the triple identity test, and consequently, the Court determined that the Defendants were legally responsible for trademark infringement under Section 29(2)(b) of the Trade Marks Act 1999 (Act).

Justice C. Hari Shankar noted, "Considering the similarities between the marks of the plaintiffs and defendants, the identical nature of the services they provide, and the potential for consumer confusion, it is evident that a clear case of infringement, as defined in Section 29(2)(b) of the Trade Marks Act 1999, has been established."

"When we apply the aforementioned test, considering that both the plaintiffs' and defendants' services cater to individuals interested in participating in fantasy games, there exists a significant potential for confusion among these individuals regarding the marks 'dream11.com' and 'dreamz11.com.' The only distinction between the two marks is the terminal 'z.' The websites themselves are even more likely to cause confusion, given that they are 'www.dream11.com' and 'www.dreamz11.com,' as pointed out by the Court."

The first and second plaintiffs were the rightful owners of the "Dream11" trademark and offered fantasy games through their website. The defendants, on the other hand, provided similar fantasy game services through a website that was purportedly quite similar to that of the plaintiffs. The use of the trademark "Dreamz11" by the defendants, along with a website design closely resembling that of the plaintiffs, resulted in accusations of trademark infringement. The plaintiffs had previously sent notices to the defendants, requesting them to cease infringing their registered trademark, but received no response.

Dissatisfied with the situation, the Plaintiffs took their case to the Court through a Commercial Civil Suit, where they sought a permanent injunction to prevent the Defendants from using the trademark "Dreamz11" on all online platforms.

The Court made reference to the case of Re: Pianotist Application [(1906) 23 RPC 774] and observed that the facts of this case align with the Pianotist test. The Court emphasized that when applying this test, it is essential to consider the appearance and sound of the trademark, the specific goods or services it will be used for, and the nature of the customers likely to purchase those goods or services. Furthermore, the Court stressed the importance of taking surrounding circumstances into account, including the potential for confusion in the public's mind if similar trademarks are used for similar goods or services. Additionally, the Court applied the triple identity test and concluded that the facts of the case also meet the requirements of this test.

Moreover, the Court determined that the confusion between the two websites and mobile apps was intensified by the striking resemblance in the design and overall user experience of the Defendants' website. It was evident that the Defendants had intentionally and deliberately crafted their website to mimic that of the Plaintiffs. Consequently, the Court found a clear and unmistakable intent on the part of the Defendants to imitate the Plaintiffs.

The Court noted, "Considering the resemblances between the marks used by the plaintiffs and the defendants, the fact that both are employed to offer identical services, and the resulting potential for consumer confusion, it is evident that a clear case of infringement as defined under Section 29(2)(b) of the Trade Marks Act 1999 has been established."

Additionally, the Court observed that despite receiving notices, the Defendants did not provide a written statement in response to the case. As a result, the Court determined that the Defendants had forfeited their right to file written statements. Consequently, the Court ruled that the Plaintiffs were entitled to seek compensation and scheduled the matter for November 10 to allow the Plaintiffs to present statements of costs before the Court's Taxation Officer.

The Court made the following observation, "Given the circumstances, the case will be scheduled before the relevant Taxation Officer of this Court on November 10, 2023. The Plaintiffs will be present to furnish a statement of the costs incurred. The Taxation Officer will then calculate the actual costs accrued by the Plaintiffs, to which they are entitled from Defendants 1 and 2. The costs, as determined by the Taxation Officer, must be paid within four weeks from the date of computation."

Therefore, the Court granted the petition and approved the request for a permanent injunction against the Defendants.

case: Sporta Technologies Pvt. Ltd. And Anr. v Dreamz11 And Anr, CS(COMM) 44/2023 & I.A. 1412/2023.