WinZO’s ongoing lawsuit against tech giant Google took new turns. The Delhi High Court will now be determining whether Google’s use of warning while downloading WinZO’s APK through Chrome browser constitutes the online gaming firm’s disparagement of trademark, goodwill, reputation, and business.
Notably, the browser currently shows a warning titled ‘This type of file may harm your device. Do you want to keep WinZO.apk anyway?’
WinZO has also contested that the use of ‘WinZO’ or ‘WinZO Games‘, adds as a use of its trademark. This clarifies that WinZO holds the trademark to aforementioned titles protected under the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The next hearing on the matter is scheduled for February 20, 2024, as per Live Law.
It is notable mentioning that back in February, a co-ordinate bench had dismissed relief to WinZO stating Google’s warning policy does not amount to inappropriate usage of its trademarks. The court noted that use of the trademark was only to display the name of the APK file being downloaded, and thus, the case of infringement does not arise.
To this, Google has replied that displaying warning(s) at the time of downloading an APK file is an industry practice. The US-based firm has said that numerous other browsers show a warning before downloading an APK file. It is to be understood that Google cannot scan for viruses in APK files, unlike the apps on Play Store.
Delhi HC to determine WinZO’s entitlement to relief in next hearing
Justice C Hari Shankar of Delhi HC has ordered both the parties to determine a joint schedule for recording evidences. The court will now determine whether the use of displaying a warning leads to breach of contract.
The applicability of section 30 of Trade Marks Act, 1999 will also be determined during the next hearing. Additionally, whether Google’s act is within the rules mentioned under the Information Technology Act will also be specified.
The Plaintiff, WinZO Games Private Limited’s entitlement to relief under the plea, will also be awaited in the hearing. If the Plaintiff’s delay, latches, and suppression of materials leads to non-grant of relief will be discussed.