Flipkart Internet Private Limited vs Godaddy Operating Company Llc & Ors on 7 December, 2020

[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Delhi High Court - Orders

Flipkart Internet Private Limited vs Godaddy Operating Company Llc & Ors on 7 December, 2020

Bench: Rajiv Shakdher

                          $~ 3
                          *    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                          +     CS(COMM) 370/2020

                                FLIPKART INTERNET PRIVATE LIMITED                           .....Plaintiff
                                         Through : None

                                                    versus

                                GODADDY OPERATING COMPANY LLC & ORS. .....Defendants
                                       Through : Mr. Vakul Sharma, Adv

                                CORAM:
                                HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
                                             ORDER

                          %                  07.12.2020
                                              [Physical Court Hearing]

                          I.A. No.11546/2020
                          1.    This is an early hearing application.

2. Mr. Vakul Sharma, who appears for the applicant/defendant no.1, says that a clarification is required vis-a-vis the directions contained in paragraph 3 and 3.1 of the order dated 19.10.2020. 2.1 According to me, the directions contained therein are eminently clear. The only thing that the Court has done is to place the onus on defendant no.1 to apply its mind with regard to whether an applicant's request for registering a domain infringes the plaintiff's registered trademark.

3. To my mind, the applicant needs to identify and remove such domain name, which is, identical or deceptively similar to the plaintiff's registered mark on its own without the plaintiff having to take the expensive route of approaching the Court for relief.

CS(COMM) 370/2020 1/2 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:ATUL JAIN Signing Date:09.12.2020 18:57:00

3.1 The instances which, according to the applicant/defendant no. 1, do not fall in the aforesaid categories (i.e. fall in the grey zone), it would convey the same to the plaintiff who would then, accordingly, approach the Court for necessary relief.

4. These are my preliminary views.

5. The application is allowed.

6. Accordingly, list I.A. No. 10889/2020 before the Court on the date given hereinafter for knowing the response of the non-applicant/plaintiff.

I.A. No.10889/2020

7. Issue notice to the non-applicant/plaintiff via all means including email.

8. List the captioned application on 21.12.2020.

9. A copy of this order will be transmitted, albeit, electronically by the Registry, to the non-applicant/plaintiff and its counsel.

10. In addition, Mr. Vakul Sharma will also serve a copy of the order passed today on the non-applicant/plaintiff and its counsel-on-record.

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J DECEMBER 07, 2020 pmc Click here to check corrigendum, if any CS(COMM) 370/2020 2/2 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:ATUL JAIN Signing Date:09.12.2020 18:57:00

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Delhi High Court - Orders