Delhi High Court - Orders
Pb Fintech Limited vs Policy Bazar Finance & Ors on 20 December, 2022
Author: Sanjeev Narula
Bench: Sanjeev Narula
$~23
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CS(COMM) 471/2020
PB FINTECH LIMITED ..... Plaintiff
Through: Mr. Kapil Wadhwa and Ms. Surya
Rajappan, Advocates.
versus
POLICY BAZAR FINANCE & ORS. ..... Defendants
Through: Ms. Sweta Sahu, Advocate for D-9/
GoDaddy.com LLC.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA
ORDER
% 20.12.2022 I.A. 21805/2022 (seeking impleadment of Defendants No. 43 to 47 to the array of parties) and I.A. 21816/2022 (seeking interim injunction against Defendants No. 43 to 47 and directions against Defendants No. 9, 10 & 14 - 15)
1. Although I.A. 21805/2022 has been deleted from the cause list and is stated to be listed today before the Joint Registrar (Judicial), perhaps because as per Rule 3 in Chapter II of the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018 [dealing with 'Powers of the Registrar'], such an application is listed before the said court, however, since the said application is interlinked with I.A. 21816/2022 (seeking interim directions), at the request of Mr. Kapil Wadhwa, counsel for Plaintiff, both the above applications are taken up by this Court today itself.
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CS(COMM) 471/2020 Page 1 of 6 By:SAPNA SETHI Signing Date:20.12.2022 19:09:032. Vide order dated 11th November, 2020, an ad-interim ex-parte injunction was granted in favour of the Plaintiff and against Defendants No. 1 to 8 (and their agents and persons acting on their behalf) from using the trademarks/ logos 'POLICYBAZAAR' and 'PAISABAZAAR' or any other deceptively similar mark(s) or logo(s) including respective domain names administered by them. Further, the concerned Domain Name Registrars [hereinafter "DNRs"] - Defendants No. 9 to 13 were directed to block/ suspend the websites of Defendants No. 1 to 8, which were registered with them; Defendants No. 14 and 15 were directed to issue directions to various internet service providers [hereinafter "ISPs"] and telecom service providers to block access to infringing domain names of Defendants No. 1 to 8. In terms of para No. 5 of the said order, Plaintiff was further granted liberty to approach this Court to array other rogue website(s) carrying on similar activities, as-and-when detected.
3. Subsequently, from time-to-time, on similar applications, Defendants No. 18 to 42 have been impleaded and interim injunction has been extended to them.
4. By way of I.A. 21805/2022, Plaintiff seeks impleadment of Defendants No. 43 to 47 and consequently, vide I.A. 21816/2022, an interim injunction against such proposed Defendants as well as direction qua suspension of impugned domains/ website, etc. is prayed for. Details of Domain Registrars vis-à-vis impugned domains belonging to Defendants No. 43 to 47, given in the said application, is culled out below:
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CS(COMM) 471/2020 Page 2 of 6 By:SAPNA SETHI Signing Date:20.12.2022 19:09:03S. Registrant Impugned Domain/ Domain Registrars No. Webpage Name
1. Defendant pbazaar.in; policy.pbazaar.in Defendant No. 9 No. 43 (GoDaddy.com, LLC)
2. Defendant policybazaarlinkpay.in Defendant No. 10 No. 44 (Endurance Digital Domain Technology LLP)
3. Defendant salepolicybazaar.com Defendant No. 9 No. 45 (GoDaddy.com, LLC)
4. Defendant policybazaarpayment.co.in Defendant No. 9 No. 46 (GoDaddy.com, LLC)
5. Defendant policybazaar.payments.in Defendant No. 10 No. 47 (Endurance Digital Domain Technology LLP)
5. Mr. Wadhwa submits that proposed Defendants No. 43 to 47 are infringing Plaintiff's right in well-known trademarks - 'POLICYBAZAAR' and 'PAISABAZAAR', with an intent to ride upon Plaintiff's goodwill and elicit commercial gains thereon. The modus operandi adopted by proposed Defendants has been set out in the application. Snapshots of the websites of proposed Defendants are annexed along with the application (I.A. 21816/2022) demonstrating that Plaintiff's website has been wholly impersonated by them. The proposed Defendants, by using Plaintiff's trademark sans authorization, are deceiving innocent customers by inducing them to transact on the said websites under a mistaken belief that they are transacting with the Plaintiff.
6. The Court has perused the screenshots annexed along with I.A. 21816/2022. The same demonstrates use of Plaintiff's trademarks by proposed Defendants No. 43 to 47, whereby they are attempting to not Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CS(COMM) 471/2020 Page 3 of 6 By:SAPNA SETHI Signing Date:20.12.2022 19:09:03 merely infringe and pass off, but instead are impersonating Plaintiff itself. Moreover, apart from the rights of Plaintiff, which are being infringed, it would also not be in public interest to permit websites/ domain names, run by proposed Defendants No. 43 to 47, to continue. In view of the above, Plaintiff has made out a prima facie case in its favour for grant of ex-parte ad-interim injunction and balance of convenience also lies in favour of the Plaintiff. Irreparable loss would be caused to the Plaintiff, if an ex-parte injunction is not passed. The loss to the public is also incalculable.
7. For the foregoing reasons, in light of previous orders passed in similar applications and in order to curb any malpractices or any financial loss to the public, following directions are passed:
(i) Proposed Defendants No. 43 to 47 are impleaded as Defendants.
Amended memo of parties, annexed with I.A. 21805/2022, is taken on record.
(ii) Defendants No. 43 to 47, their agents or any other persons acting for or on their behalf are restrained from using trademark/ logo 'POLICYBAZAAR' and 'PAISABAZAAR', or any other mark(s)/ logo(s) which are deceptively similar to the aforementioned marks either as part of the domain name/ UPI ID/ E-mail ID or as trademark, service mark or trading style/ corporate name, in relation to any goods or services which would result in passing off or infringement of Plaintiff's trademark, mentioned above.
(iii) Defendants No. 9 and 10 are directed to immediately block/ suspend the domain names, as well as the websites as mentioned in the table in para No. 3 of this order, if are hosted/ registered via their platforms.
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CS(COMM) 471/2020 Page 4 of 6 By:SAPNA SETHI Signing Date:20.12.2022 19:09:03Status quo shall also be maintained in respect of the said domain names and the same shall be locked with immediate effect. Defendants No. 9 and 10 are restrained from transferring the said domain names or creating any third-party interest on the same, until further orders.
(iv) Defendants No. 9 and 10 are directed to disclose to counsel for Plaintiff and file an affidavit before this Court disclosing complete contact details of the registrants or persons who have registered the abovementioned domain names (in para No. 3 of this order) along with their postal address, e-mail addresses, bank account details, and telephone numbers, etc. Let the said affidavit be filed within one week from the receipt of the copy of this order. Upon receipt of this order, Defendants No. 9 and 10 shall immediately communicate contents of this order, to the registrants of the infringing domain names. In case Plaintiff comes across any other domain names or websites infringing Plaintiff's registered marks/ logos, they are permitted to approach the Court with an application for appropriate reliefs.
(v) Registrants of the infringing domain names (provided in para No. 3 of the said order), shall cease all use of the domain names and pull down the websites hosted on the said domain names with immediate effect.
(vi) Defendants No. 14 [DoT] and 15 [MEITY] shall issue directions to all ISPs and telecom service provides directing them to block access to the websites hosted by Defendants No. 43 to 47 on the impugned domain names/ websites.
8. Let compliance in terms of Order XXXIX Rule 3 of CPC be done Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CS(COMM) 471/2020 Page 5 of 6 By:SAPNA SETHI Signing Date:20.12.2022 19:09:03 with one week from today.
9. Accordingly, I.A. 21805/2022 is disposed of; let summons in the suit be served on newly impleaded Defendants No. 43 to 47, by all permissible modes, upon filing of process fee, returnable on the next date of hearing.
10. Issue notice in I.A. 21816/2022. Ms. Sweta Sahu, Advocate, accepts notice on behalf of Defendant No. 9. Reply, if any, be filed within four weeks from today. Rejoinder thereto, if necessary, be filed within two weeks thereafter. Notice be issued to newly impleaded Defendants No. 43 to 47, by all permissible modes, on filing of process fee, returnable on the next date of hearing.
11. Dasti.
SANJEEV NARULA, J DECEMBER 20, 2022 nk Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CS(COMM) 471/2020 Page 6 of 6 By:SAPNA SETHI Signing Date:20.12.2022 19:09:03