Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Delhi High Court - Orders

Flipkart Internet Private Limited vs Godaddy Operating Company Llc & Ors on 27 March, 2024

Author: Sanjeev Narula

Bench: Sanjeev Narula

                                    $~38
                                    *    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                                    +           CS(COMM) 370/2020
                                                FLIPKART INTERNET PRIVATE LIMITED                                                       ..... Plaintiff
                                                                                      Through:                 Ms. Sukanya Pande and Ms. Arushi
                                                                                                               Mann, Advocates.

                                                                                      versus

                                                GODADDY OPERATING COMPANY LLC & ORS. ..... Defendants
                                                                                      Through:                 Ms. Shweta Sahu and Mr. Birjesh
                                                                                                               Ujjainwal, Advocates for D-1, 2, 31.
                                                                                                               Mr. Ravi Prakash, CGSC.

                                                CORAM:
                                                HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA
                                                                                      ORDER

% 27.03.2024 I.A. 10889/2020 (under Order 39 Rule 4 of the CPC filed by the Defendant No.1)

1. The present application has been filed by Defendant No. 1 with the following prayers:

"34. In view of the aforesaid facts and grounds, it is humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to vary and set aside qua the Applicant, Defendant No. 1, the operative parts whereof read as under, thereby necessitating discharge of the Applicant against the implications of the passed by this Hon'ble Court in the I.A. No. 7941 of 2020 (under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC) and I.A. 9364 of 2020:
(a) discharge from the operative part of para 3:
"Para 3... the DNRs need to take stock of the situation and immediately remove to begin with, all such domain names. which are identical to and deceptively similar to the plaintiff's trademark/domain name."

b) modify the operative part of para 3.1 as underlined below:

This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 28/03/2024 at 23:56:45 "Para 3.1..... For the future as and when the plaintiff lodges a complaint qua a domain name which, according to it, is identical or deceptively similar to its trademarks/domain name, the concerned DNRs will take a decision on the complaint made, in that behalf within 48 hours of it being filed."
and to be read as:
"Para 3.1..... For the future as and when the plaintiff lodges a complaint qua a domain name which, according to it, is identical or deceptively similar to its trademarks/domain name, the concerned DNRs will take a decision on the complaint made, in that behalf in accordance with the grievance framework as provided under Rule 3(11) of the Information Technology (Intermediaries Guidelines) Rules, 2011."

(c) Pass any other order that this Hon'ble Court deems fit in view of the facts and circumstances of this suit."

2. At the outset, Ms. Shweta Sahu, counsel for Defendant No. 1, states that she is not pressing for the prayer mentioned under paragraph No. 34(a) and seeks leave to withdraw the said prayer with liberty to take appropriate action in accordance with law.

3. In so far as prayer No. 34(b) is concerned, the only request to the Court is to modify the order by extending the timelines for compliance from 48 hours to the time period provided in Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021.

4. Counsel for the Plaintiff has no objection. Accordingly, the present application is disposed of by directing that paragraph No. 3.1. of order dated 19th October, 2020, shall now read as follows:

"For the future, as and when the plaintiff lodges a complaint qua a domain name which, according to it, is identical or deceptively similar to its trademark/domain name, the concerned DNRs will take a decision on the complaint made, in that behalf, in accordance with the grievance mechanism provided in the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021."

This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 28/03/2024 at 23:56:45

5. With the above directions, the application is disposed of. CS(COMM) 370/2020

6. Parties are directed to file a joint schedule of documents within three weeks from today. Parties shall on the next date also bring the proposed issues for consideration.

7. List before the Joint Registrar for marking of exhibits in terms thereof, on 30th April, 2024.

8. List before the Court for case management and framing of issues on 25th July, 2024.

SANJEEV NARULA, J MARCH 27, 2024 nk This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 28/03/2024 at 23:56:46