Domain Name III

Learned Single Judge did not agree, Courts in Delhi could have jurisdiction.

It does not take much in the virtual world to masquerade as somebody else. According to us, principles surrounding territorial jurisdiction, in cases of online trade via internet websites, is fairly well established. Even if a website is not directed at customers in a particular country, that those customers are not restricted to have access is sufficient. An interim decision is required to be made based on probable rather than a definitive view. In matters of infringement of trademark, possibility of confusion and deception is good enough for Court to grant injunction.

The way trademark ‘TATA’ has been lifted and adopted as it is, without even an attempt to disguise it with a prefix or a suffix to claim distinctiveness, appears to be unscrupulous. We grant ex-parte ad-interim injunctions restraining Respondents from manufacturing, selling, offering for sale, supplying, advertising or unauthorizedly using Appellant’s well-known trademark ‘TATA’ as part of the name of their digital token/cryptocurrency or as part of their domain name and websites: ‘’/social media pages.

As far as is concerned, it does not cause any deception or confusion and is not prohibited at this stage. Appellant cannot prevent adoption by others of names that naturally have ‘TATA’ embedded in them.

Hon’ble Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri and Hon’ble Justice Mukta Gupta of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi, Tata Sons Private Limited v. Hakunamatata Tata Founders, [FAO(OS) (COMM) 62/202] decided on 19.09.2022.


Source link

Comments are closed.