Delhi High Court - Orders
Bajaj Finance Limited vs Registrant Of Www.Bajaj-Finserve.Org ... on 18 May, 2021
Author: Jayant Nath
Bench: Jayant Nath
$~OS-3
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CS(COMM) 228/2021
BAJAJ FINANCE LIMITED ..... Plaintiff
Through Mr.Abhishek Singh, Mr.J.Amal
Anand, Ms.Aakanksha Uthaiah, Mr.Shivam
Chaudhary and Ms. Kirtika Chhatwal, Advs.
Versus
REGISTRANT OF WWW.BAJAJ-FINSERVE.ORG
& ORS. ..... Defendant
Through Mr. Moazzam Khan, Ms. Gowree
Gokhale, Mr. Alipak Banerjee, Ms. Aparna Gaur
and Ms. Aparimita Pratap for Defendant Nos. 6, 7,
11, 12, 14, 17 and 22
Mr. Akhil Sibal, Sr.Adv. with Mr.Aditya Gupta,
Ms. Aishwarya Kane, Ms. Deboshree Mukherjee
and Ms. Shriya, Advs. for D-19
Mr. Ashok kumar Adv and Mr Ujjwal Goel Advs.
for D-31/NIXI.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH
ORDER
% 18.05.2021 This hearing is conducted through video-conferencing. IA No.6443-6444/2021 The applications are allowed subject to all just exceptions.
IA No. 6442/2021Court fees be filed within three weeks from today. The application is disposed of.
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:NIRMLA TIWARI Signing Date:20.05.2021 11:38:29CS(COMM) 228/2021
1. Let the plaint be registered as a suit.
2. Learned counsel for defendants No.6, 7, 11, 12, 14, 17, 22 & 31 and learned senior counsel for defendant No. 19 vehemently oppose the issue of summons to the said defendants pointing out that for the same reliefs, the plaintiff had filed a suit before the Bombay High Court. It is stated that the said suit was unconditionally withdrawn by the plaintiff without seeking any liberty under Order 23 Rule 1 CPC to file a fresh suit before another court. It is pleaded that the same reliefs as sought before the Bombay High Court are being sought against the said defendants in the present suit.
3. Reliance is also placed on the judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case of Hindustan Unilever Ltd. vs. Endurance Domains Technology LLP & Ors, 2020 SCC OnLine Bom. 809 to urge that the reliefs that are being sought against defendants No. 6 to 26 cannot be granted by this court. These issues will be gone into at a later stage.
4. Issue summons.
5. Learned counsel for defendants No. 6, 7, 11, 12, 14, 17, 22, 19 and 31 accept summons.
6. Written statement be filed within 30 days. Replication be filed within 30 days thereafter.
7. Summons be issued to the balance defendants, through speed post, courier and email, returnable for 01.09.2021.
8. The plaintiff will place on record a copy of the plaint along with applications filed before the Bombay High Court and the orders passed by the Bombay High Court.
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:NIRMLA TIWARI Signing Date:20.05.2021 11:38:29 IA No. 6441/20211. This is an application filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC seeking an ex parte injunction to restrain defendants No. 1 to 5 and their employees, etc. acting for and on their behalf from using their respective domain names/websites for any purpose whatsoever. Further, injunction is sought to restrain defendants No. 1 to 5 and their employees, etc. from registering any domain names/websites which are identical or deceptively similar to the plaintiff's trademarks and brand names 'BAJAJ FINANCE' or 'BAJAJ FINSERVE' or domain names which have 'BAJAJ' as prefix and suffix in combination with any other words. Relief is also sought to restrain defendants No. 6 to 26 and defendants No. 29 to 31.
2. The case of the plaintiff is that the plaintiff is the proprietor of 'BAJAJ FINANCE' trademarks and the exclusive licensee of 'BAJAJ FINSERV' trademarks and hence, it is claimed that the plaintiff retains the exclusive right to use of the said trademarks and all individuals/entities/organizations/etc. are prohibited and prevented from using the same. Defendants No. 1 to 5 are said to be the registrants of the fake and unauthorised domain names and rogue websites which are using the mark identical or deceptively similar to the plaintiff's trademarks/brand names 'BAJAJ FINANCE' or 'BAJAJ FINSERV' or domain names which have 'BAJAJ' as prefix or suffix in combination of other words.
3. Regarding defendants No. 6 to 26, it is stated that they are the domain registrars who are in the business of selling/offering for registration of domain names. It is stated that the said defendants are in the business of registration of domain names which are identical or deceptively similar to Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:NIRMLA TIWARI Signing Date:20.05.2021 11:38:29 the plaintiff's trademarks/brand names.
4. The plaintiff is using the trade mark 'BAJAJ FINANCE' which is registered under Class 36 since 2007. The plaintiff is also a licensee of Bajaj Finserv Ltd. and is authorised to use the trade mark 'BAJAJ FINSERV'. The plaintiff in the course of their business actively operate and use the following domain names:-
(i) www.bajajfinance.com
(ii) www.bajajfinserv.in
5. It is stated that defendants No. 1 to 5 are the registrants of the fake and unauthorised domain names and websites which are identical or deceptively similar to the plaintiff's trademarks and brand names 'BAJAJ FINANCE' and 'BAJAJ FINSERV'. The concerned domain names are as follows:-
Defendant Websites Domain Registrars
Defendant No.1 Namecheap INC
www.bajaj-finserve.org (Defendant No.10)
Defendant No.2 Go Daddy.com LLC
www.bajajfinoservices.in (Defendant No. 6)
Defendant No.3 Dreamscape Network
www.bajazfin.online (Defendant No. 21)
Defendant No.4 Endurance Domains
www.bajajfincorp.in (Defendant No. 14)
Defendant No.5 Endurance Domains
www.bjafince.in (Defendant No. 14)
6. It is manifest that the plaintiff is the registered proprietor of the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:NIRMLA TIWARI Signing Date:20.05.2021 11:38:29 trademarks 'BAJAJ FINANCE' and has rights in 'BAJAJ FINSERV'. The use by defendants No. 1 to 5 of the domain names which are identical/deceptively similar to the plaintiffs trademarks and brand names tantamount to infringement of the rights of the plaintiff.
7. Defendant Nos. 1 to 5 are restrained from using the trade marks 'BAJAJ FINANCE' and 'BAJAJ FINSERV' or any other trade mark / name deceptively similar to the same. Defendants No. 6, 10, 14 and 21 may suspend the aforenoted domain names till the said websites are registered with the said domain names.
8. Issue notice.
9. Learned counsel for defendants No. 6, 7, 11, 12, 14, 17, 22, 19 and 31 accept notice.
10. Reply be filed within four weeks. Replication, if any, be filed within four weeks thereafter.
11. Notice be issued to the balance defendants through speed post, courier and email, returnable for 01.09.2021.
12. The plaintiff to comply with the provisions of Order 39 Rule 3 CPC within two weeks from today.
JAYANT NATH, J MAY 18, 2021 rb Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:NIRMLA TIWARI Signing Date:20.05.2021 11:38:29