Summary
This post analyses the Delhi High Court’s interim order in Gameskraft Technologies Private Limited & Anr. v. John Doe & Ors., concerning trademark and copyright infringement in the online gaming sector. Gameskraft sought protection for its RummyCulture and Gameskraft marks, alleging that rogue websites had copied their content and branding, misleading consumers. The Court granted a broad interim injunction, restraining further infringement, ordering takedown of offending websites, and blocking access to infringing domains. The matter is scheduled for further hearing in January 2025. The analysis underscores the legal standards for trademark protection and enforcement in India’s online gaming industry.
In the case of Gameskraft Technologies Private Limited & Anr. v. John Doe & Ors. before the Delhi High Court, the plaintiffs, Gameskraft Technologies Private Limited (“Gameskraft”), sought a permanent injunction against multiple rogue websites and unknown individuals (John Doe defendants) for trademark and copyright infringement, passing off, and unfair competition.
Gameskraft’s Case
Gameskraft operates several online gaming platforms, including “RummyCulture” and “RummyTime.” They submitted that various infringing websites had copied the layout, content, and marks of their gaming platforms, leading to consumer confusion and unjust enrichment.
Gameskraft sought takedown of the infringing websites, damages, and other reliefs. They argued that their trademarks, such as “RummyCulture” and “Gameskraft,” were inherently distinctive and well-known, requiring the highest level of protection under the Trade Marks Act, 1999. They also argued that the infringing websites misled the public by falsely representing themselves as being associated with Gameskraft, using identical or deceptively similar marks.
The Court’s Order
The Court granted an interim injunction restraining the defendants from further infringing on Gameskraft’s trademarks and copyrights. It also directed the defendants to take down the infringing websites and restrained them from registering domain names or SEO keywords using the plaintiffs’ marks or deceptively similar variants. The court also ordered telecom and internet service providers to block access to the infringing domain names and associated content. The matter was listed for further hearing in January 2025.
Citation: Gameskraft Technologies Private Limited & Anr. v. John Doe & Ors., CS(COMM) 855/2024 (H.C. Delhi Oct. 1, 2024). Available at: http://indiankanoon.org/doc/67127848/
Disclaimer
The case note/s in this blog post have been written by IP Attorneys at BananaIP Counsels based on their review and understanding of the Judgments. It may be noted that other IP attorneys and experts in the field may have different opinions about the cases or arrive at different conclusions therefrom. It is advisable to read the Judgments before making any decisions based on the case notes.
If you have any questions, or if you wish to speak with an IP expert/attorney, please reach us at: contact@bananaip.com or 91-80-26860414/24/34.