- Home
- News
- Articles+
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- News
- Articles
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
Delhi HC directs suspension of ‘Dream11 Team’ website in a trademark infringement case
After a trademark infringement suit was filed by Sporta Technologies, the Delhi High Court has directed GoDaddy to suspend/block a website being run in the name of “Dream11 Team”. The plaintiffs averred in the plaint that plaintiff no. 2 (GoDaddy LLC) is the proprietor of the registered trademark “Dream 11.com”. According to the plaintiffs, the registration of the aforementioned...
ToRead the Full Story, Subscribe to
Access the exclusive LEGAL ERAStories,Editorial and Expert Opinion
After a trademark infringement suit was filed by Sporta Technologies, the Delhi High Court has directed GoDaddy to suspend/block a website being run in the name of “Dream11 Team”. The plaintiffs averred in the plaint that plaintiff no. 2 (GoDaddy LLC) is the proprietor of the registered trademark “Dream 11.com”. According to the plaintiffs, the registration of the aforementioned trademark was obtained on 28 May, 2009.
Dream11 is a fantasy sports platform based in India that allows users to play fantasy cricket, hockey, football, kabaddi and basketball.
Justice Rajiv Shakdher of the Delhi High Court restrained the owners of Dream11 Team from using the “Dream 11” trademark, domain name or a mark which is deceptively similar. The Court also directed the ‘Dream11 Team’ to take down the infringing material from its social media pages.
The Court was informed that the Sporta Technologies (Plaintiff) operated the website ‘www.dream11.com’ and that “Dream 11” was a registered trademark.
The Plaintiff said that the owners Dream11 Team “slavishly adopted” an identical trademark and trade logo and, therefore, created confusion in the minds of the consumers.
Justice Shakdher said, “The balance of convenience also appears to be in favour of the plaintiffs. It is my sense that if, at this juncture, the plaintiffs are not protected, their statutory and commercial rights are likely to get jeopardised.”
The Court further observed, “In the meanwhile, the defendant, its proprietor, partners, employees and agents are restrained from using the mark “Dream 11” and the logo set forth hereafter or any other trademark/logo which is deceptively similar to the plaintiffs’ trademarks and logo. Furthermore, the defendant, its proprietor, partners, employees and agents are restrained from using the plaintiffs’ trademark as part of its domain name.”
While impleading GoDaddy, LLC, the Registrar of the domain name, to the suit, the Court added, “GoDaddy, LLC [now defendant no. 2] is directed to suspend/block the defendant’s domain name i.e. www.dream11team.com.”
The Court issued summons in the suit and listed the matter for further hearing on October 6.