CASES

Serial Name of the Citation Description Date of

Number case Judgement

1. MOONSHINE CS(COMM) Facts 31st

TECHNOLOG 331/2021 January,
Y PRIVATE vs 2022
TICTOK SKILL
GAMES Plaintiiff is the registered owner of the trademarks-
PRIVATE Baazi, Baazi Games, PokerBaazi, RummyBaazi,
LIMITED &
ORS. BalleBaazi. The defendant “WinZo Baazi”
dishonestly started using ‘Baazi’ in respect of the
services that they were providing and thus, passing
off their services as those of the plaintiff.

Issue:

Whether there is a prima facie case of infringement

and passing off by the defendants, of the registered
mark of the Plaintiff and the services provided by the
defendant as associated with those provided by the
Plaintiff?

Held:

“Even the conjunctive use of "Baazi" with "WinZo"

is similar to the use by the plaintiff of "Baazi" with
"Poker", "Rummy", "Balle", etc. The services
provided are identical and therefore, in the light of
such identity under Section 29(2)(c) read with
Section 29(3) of the T.M. Act, the court will
necessarily presume that confusion would arise in the
mind of a player as to the origin of the services and
accordingly, injunction would have to be issued.”

The trademark signifies the origin of the product.

When people are satisfied with the products supplied
by a manufacturer or service provider, they buy them
on the basis of the trade mark and over time it
becomes popular and well known. Thus, the use of a
similar or identical trademark by a competitor in the
 same product would lead unwary customers to
believe that it originates from the same source. In the
present case, online players may be led into believing
that "WinZo Baazi" was another service offered by
the plaintiff. Thus, in order to protect such unwary
customers, it would be necessary to protect the
plaintiff‟s rights to its registered trademark.

In the facts of the present case, neither delay nor

acquiescence is made out. Furthermore, the defence
of delay and acquiescence are defences in equity and
in the present case, the defendants do not appear to
be fair and honest in adopting "Baazi" along with
their registered trademark "WinZo". The balance of
convenience‟ clearly tilts in favour of the plaintiff.

In light of the above, the Court granted an injunction

in favour of the Plaintiff and restrained the
Defendants from using the mark 'Winzo Baazi' or
any other mark comprising 'Baazi' in relation to
online gaming services by way of preliminary
injunction until the final decision in the suit.

2. Walter Bushnell 2014 SCC Factual Matrix Decided

OnLine Del Plaintiffs are engaged in the business on May
Pvt. Ltd. and
3243 of pharmaceutical products since past several 26, 2014
Ors vs Versus
decades, one of them being under the trade mark
MiMiracle Life DROTIN. They had bonafidely coined and adopted
the trade mark DROTIN and has used exclusively,
Sciences and
continuously and extensively since 1997 in relation
Anr to tablets and injections.
Before
Manmohan Defendants are engaged in the business of
Singh, J. manufacturing and marketing medicinal
and pharmaceutical preparations under the mark
DRAMATOL.

Relevant Contentions

The defendants contented that the plaintiffs did not

use “DROT” in abbreviation form but as well-
recognized trade mark. There are more than 25
products with the marks having prefix “DROT” or
any other 4-5 products of DROT which are available
in the market or are being manufactured by any other
manufacturer.

Held:

Only the marks are to be compared by the Court and

in case the registration is granted in favour of the
 plaintiff, he acquires valuable right by reason of the
said registration — To judge infringement of trade
mark by colourable imitation of the mark or not, the
Court has to consider the overall impression of the
mark in the minds of general public — If Court finds
that the defendant's mark is closely, visually and
phonetically similar, no further proof is necessary —
It is not necessary for the plaintiff to adduce evidence
of actual deception in order to prove the case of
infringement — If packaging of two products is
different in an action of infringement, the same is
immaterial — Its validity cannot be challenged in the
infringement proceedings under the Trade and
Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 — In the instant case
the trademarks are deceptive
3. Info Edge 98 (2002) DLT Facts:
(India) Pvt. Ltd. 499
v. Shailesh
Gupta