Delhi High Court rules in favour of Flipkart, grants injunction against the use of the registered trademark “Flipkart”.
The present matter is filed by Flipkart Internet Private Limited (Plaintiff) against Flipkartwinnerdraw.com & Ors. (Defendants) alleging infringement of trademark and passing off of its trademark “Flipkart” by the Defendants in respect of domain name, lucky draw contest or in any other manner. Plaintiff states that it owns and operates an online shopping website “www.flipkart.com” and mobile application “Flipkart” and is the proprietor of the trademarks in various Classes under the Trade Marks Act, 1999.Plaintiff alleges that Defendants are infringing Plaintiff’s registered trademark “Flipkart” by having domain names containing “Flipkart‟ and/or using such infringing websites to give false representation/impression to the innocent public that such websites emanates and/or are associated with the Plaintiff. Plaintiff further alleges that the websites in question are vehicles of infringement and their business model is designed and dedicated towards misrepresenting to the members of the public that they are associated with the plaintiff and mislead them into not only providing their personal but also inducing them to part with their hard earned monies. Plaintiff states that the Defendants have failed to respond to any cease and desist/takedown notices issued to them.
HC notes that an ex-parte order granting injunction has already been passed by the HC against the defendants.
Plaintiff refers to judgement in Satya Infrastructure Ltd. and Ors. Vs. Satya Infra & Estates Pvt. Ltd., 2013 SCC OnLine Del 508 wherein HC held
“I am of the opinion that no purpose will be served in such cases by directing the plaintiffs to lead ex parte evidence in the form of affidavit by way of examination-in-chief and which invariably is a repetition of the contents of the plaint. The plaint otherwise, as per the amended CPC, besides being verified, is also supported by affidavits of the plaintiffs. I fail to fathom any reason for according any additional sanctity to the affidavit by way of examination-in-chief than to the affidavit in support of the plaint or to any exhibit marks being put on the documents which have been filed by the plaintiffs and are already on record. I have therefore heard the counsel for the plaintiffs on merits qua the relief of injunction.”
Hence, HC states that the Defendants have no claim to defend the claim as they have neither entered appearance nor filed written statements. Further, HC finds that the Plaintiff is the registered owner of the trademark in question. Hence, HC dismisses the case in favour of the Plaintiff and grants injunction in favour of the Plaintiff with costs.