9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (7) TMI 133X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... trade name or corporate name or as part of a trade or corporate name, as a metatag or otherwise on the internet or the world wide web, or in any other manner whatsoever so as to infringe the registered trade marks of the Plaintiff No.1 or pass off their business as and for the business of the Plaintiffs. B. The Defendant be ordered by a decree of mandatory injunction to transfer the domain name 'cokestudio.in' to the Plaintiff No.1 and a direction be issued to the National Internet Exchange of India c/o ISPAI (Internet Service Provider Association of India) 612-A, Chiranjiv Tower, 43, Nehru Place, New Delhi-110019 as also to the Registrar of the domain name M/s A to Z Domains Solutions Pvt. Ltd. to transfer the said domain name to the Plai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ia, plaintiffs found that the defendant had registered the domain name www.cokestudio.in. However, upon typing the domain name "cokestudio.in", no webpage was found. 8. Upon further investigation, the plaintiffs found that the said domain name had been registered by the defendant since 05th June, 2010. However, the defendant had failed to launch any website even though substantial period of time had expired since its registration. It is the plaintiffs case that defendant had only registered the website for the purposes of squatting on it. 9. On 26th August, 2011, plaintiffs filed the present suit against the defendant. On 29th August, 2011, this Court passed an ex parte ad interim injunction order against the defendant. 10. Since the def ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... but were the similarly between the plaintiff's and the defendant's mark is so close either visually, phonetically or otherwise and the court reaches the conclusion that there is an imitation, no further evidence is required to establish that the plaintiff's rights are violated." 15. Further, this Court in Info Edge (India) Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. vs. Shailesh Gupta & Anr., 98 (2002) DLT 499 has held "Both the domain names "Naukri.com" of the plaintiff and "Naukari.com" of the defendant, depicting the nature and type of business activity they carry on are identical or confusingly similar trade mark or service marks. It is also a possibility for an internet user while searching for the website of the plaintiff to enter into the website of the defe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ervices through its promotional activities and the first domain owner would thereby lose their custom. It is apparent therefore that a domain name may have all the characteristics of a trademark and could found an action for passing off....... xxxx xxxx xxxx 31. ............. The appellant is the prior user and has the right to debar the respondent from eating into the goodwill it may have built up in connection with the name........." 17. Consequently, the present suit and application are decreed in terms of prayers 'A' and 'B' of the plaint along with costs. A direction is also issued to the National Internet Exchange of India c/o ISPAI (Internet Service Providers Association of India) 612-A, Chiranjiv Tower, 43, Nehru Place, New Delhi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
