Delhi High Court issues permanent injunction in favour of Dream11 in ‘’ case

Published on:

Dream11 parent company Sporta Technologies Private Limited, filed a suit against “” for using Dream11 as a domain name under infringement or using the company’s trademarks.

During the hearing, Justice Navin Chawla said that the defendant’s domain name is confusingly similar to the plaintiffs’ and is obviously intended to capitalize on the goodwill and reputation of their marks. The plaintiffs have been able to establish that they are the registered owners of the “Dream11 Marks”.

An official court statement said, “The adoption of the domain name is a clear case of infringement of the marks of the plaintiffs and amounts to passing off the services of the defendant as that of the plaintiffs. The defendant not only intends to take unfair advantage of the marks of the plaintiffs and ride on the reputation of the plaintiffs’ marks but also deceive unwary consumers of their association with the plaintiffs. Such acts of the defendant would also lead to dilution of the mark of the plaintiffs.”

Sporta Technologies told the court that in December 2019, the company learned that a website was using dream11. bet domain as a gambling website and taking bets by collecting user information.

The website was using Sporta Technologies’ official trademark, “dream11,” and even had a YouTube channel.

In the lawsuit brought by Sporta Technologies in 2020, the plaintiff requested a permanent injunction prohibiting the defendant from using the word “Dream11” in the domain name or in any other way that can be considered an infringement or passing off of the plaintiff’s trademarks.

The plaintiff claimed that the defendant’s use of the “Dream11 Marks” as part of their domain name was deceptive and amounted to passing off and infringement of their reputation and goodwill.

The company also claimed that under the Public Gambling Act of 1867, it was illegal for the defendant to use their trademarks in connection with betting and gambling.

Further submissions of rulings from Sporta Technologies included Varun Gumber v. Union Territory of Chandigarh, 2017 SCC OnLine P&H 5372 and Gurdeep Singh Sachar v. Union of India and Others, 2019 SCC OnLine Bom 13059, which has determined that Dream11’s business required a certain level of skill, and as a result, the platform was legal.

On February 6, 2020, the high court ordered GoDaddy, the domain name registrant, to immediately disable and suspend the website “” YouTube was also told to “suspend/remove/take down” the channel “” from its platform.

According to the high court, it was decided in Anugya Gupta v. Ajay Kumar and Others, 2022 SCC OnLine Del 1922, that a domain name owner’s right is entitled to equal protection under the trademark legislation.

Further statement quoted, “The use of the same or similar domain name may lead to diversion of users, which could result from such users mistakenly accessing one domain name instead of another. Therefore, a domain name may have all the characteristics of a trademark and could find an action for passing off.”

The defendant decided not to enter an appearance in the lawsuit to defend itself, nor has it elected to file written declarations.

Justice Chawla said, “In my opinion, therefore, this is a fit case where a Summary Judgment in terms of Order XIII-A of the CPC, as applicable to commercial disputes of a specified value, read with Rule 27 of the IPD Rules deserves to be passed in favor of the plaintiffs and against the defendant.”

The court has ruled that “The Suit is decreed in favor of the plaintiffs and against the defendant in terms of prayers made in paragraph nos. 33 (A) and (B) of the plant. The plaintiff is also held entitled to the costs of the Suit.”