Delhi High Court rules in favor of Baazi Group

Delhi High Court rules in favor of Baazi Group

L & L Partners represented the firm

In a big win for Baazi Group of Companies, the Delhi High Court has restrained Tictok Skill Games Private Limited from using or attempting to use the group's well-known brand and registered trademark Baazi, Baazi Games, PokerBaazi, BalleBaazi or any other sign similar to the trademarks mentioned.

The bench of Justice Asha Menon remarked that the use of a similar word by a competitor, coupled with dishonest intention and bad faith would suffice to restrain the user and misuser to do equitable justice to the plaintiff.

The high court was considering a suit filed by Baazi Group (plaintiff), a pioneer in the Indian gaming industry. It had sought a perpetual and mandatory injunction to restrain the defendants (Tictok Skill Games and others) from infringement of its registered trademarks.

Established in 2014, over the period, the Baazi Group has been offering quality gaming products and experiences to its customers under the registered trademarks including Baazi, Baazi Games, PokerBaazi, RummyBaazi, BalleBaazi and Baazi Mobile Games.

The plaintiff claimed that it had originally adopted Baazi as its trademark, registering several variations between 2014 and 2020. Still valid, these became the trading identity, corporate name and domain names of the company.

It informed that the first defendant (Tictoc) had dishonestly started using Baazi in respect of the services it provided. It argued that due to the success achieved by it, even the second defendant (director of the first defendant company) began his own business called WinZo Games in India. He started using the trademark Baazi along with WinZo, branding its services on its website and mobile app as WinZo Baazi.

The plaintiff urged that by merely claiming that the defendants were only using Baazi as a descriptive word for wagering/betting, it could not be accepted that the use of Baazi was bona fide. It was contended that since the word was not related to a gaming app, particularly on the mobile phone, it was not descriptive of the services of the defendants.

However, the defendant's counsel argued that the plaintiff was using the word Baazi for a web-based gaming application, which involved betting. The word merely described its services. He submitted that a person could not monopolize a descriptive word, used in relation to gaming services.

The bench was of the opinion that the plaintiff's business had been thriving and they had established their popularity as an online gaming platform. Also, it was not evident that any other competitor was using Baazi throughout that time. Prima facie it appeared that Baazi was a brand indicating the name of the provider of the services - the plaintiff.

It further stated that Baazi was not a word apt to describe gaming or wagering services online or as a mobile app and it was the plaintiff's cleverness in using the common word for its benefit. The court said that the conjunctive use of Baazi with WinZo was similar to the use by the plaintiff as PokerBaazi or RummyBaazi. Thus, as per the Trade Marks Act, 1999, it was presumed that the confusion would arise in the mind of a player as to the origin of the services. It, therefore, issued an injunction.

The court noted that the defendants had failed to establish that using Baazi was in accordance with the honest practices in industrial or commercial matters and it was not taking unfair advantage of it.

Justice Menon ruled, "The manner in which Baazi was written, projected and used in a mobile app in 2021 and the adoption of Team Baazi, while the suit itself was pending, reinforces the plaintiff's grievance that the defendants were trying to pass off their services as probably originating from the plaintiff."

The court also highlighted the fact that the defendants chose to introduce a gaming app with the name WinZo Baazi. It also began using Team Baazi, copying straight out of the webpage of the plaintiff. This would certainly lead to confusion among the players about a probable connection between the two. Undoubtedly, it impacted the distinctiveness of the registered trademark of the plaintiff and his reputation and goodwill, which could not be compensated in terms of money.

"There are several words that could have been used to describe the gaming services and app of the defendant instead of Baazi and which are indicative of gaming /wagering/competing. The defendants have alleged that the plaintiff had become jealous of the $65 million investment that was coming to the first defendant, prompting the filing of the present suit. But the opp    osite appears to be more true, that the second defendant on realizing the worth of the name Baazi, sought to piggyback ride on the reputation and goodwill of the plaintiff by somehow giving an impression that WinZo Baazi was just like Baazi Games," Justice Menon observed.

The court directed the defendants to remove/delete/omit or withdraw any and all references or use of the plaintiff's well-known brand and registered trademark in any form or manner.

L&L Partners, Intellectual Property Law Group's senior advocate Chander M. Lall and advocates Trushita Mehra, Ananya Chug, Subhash Bhutoria and Amit Panigrahi represented the plaintiff company, Moonshine Technology.