Case Law Details
Dhani Loans And Services Limited & Anr. Vs www.dhanifinance.com & Ors. (Delhi High Court)
Conclusion: Delhi HC granted permanent injunction and compensation to the plaintiff as the triple identity test of identical/deceptively similar trademarks, identical services and trade channels stands satisfied and use of the impugned trademarks/domain name by Defendant constitutes infringement of the Plaintiffs’’ registered trademarks in present facts of the case.
Facts: The present suit has been filed by the plaintiffs for a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendant no. 1 or on their behalf in any manner from using the impugned trade mark/logo or the domain name www.dhanifinance.com or any identical or deceptively similar trade mark/name/logo or domain name either as a trade mark, trading style, logo, domain name or in any other manner which is identical or deceptively similar to the plaintiffs’ trade marks ‘DHANI‘ or the ‘POTLI’ device stand-alone or in any combination thereof and/or domain name www.indiabullsdhani.com, in relation to any services especially for financial and transaction services and assistance thereto.
As per the plaintiffs, the original artistic works in the device marks are a subject matter of protection under Section 2(c) of the Copyright Act, 1956 (in short, ‘Copyright Act’) and the copyright therein is exclusively owned by the plaintiffs. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the defendant no. 1, deliberately and in brazen disregard to the plaintiffs’ statutory and common law rights, started using the impugned mark as well as operating a website under the impugned domain name www.dhanifinance.com, offering identical services as that of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs assert that the adoption of the plaintiffs’ marks by the defendant no. 1 is mala fide and aimed at establishing an illegal association with the plaintiff no. 2 by seemingly coming across as just another website/portal of the plaintiff no. 2.
The Plaintiff submitted that the act of the defendant no. 1 of using a mark/logo deceptively similar to the logo amounts to infringement of the plaintiffs’ registered copyright and the defendant no. 1 has neither filed the written statement nor entered appearance, this is fit case for passing of a Summary Judgment under Order XIII-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, as applicable to the commercial disputes of a specified value.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
