Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4. The witnesses of the plaintiff also deposed that the monetary losses to the tune at least Rs.25 lacs had been caused to the plaintiff owing to the impugned website and the damage to the goodwill and reputation of the plaintiff was immense. The said case/evidence of the plaintiff remains unrebutted.

5. Exhibit PW1/14 shows that the domain name SUPER CASSETTES. COM was created on 27th September, 2003 and was to expire on 27th September, 2004. The plaintiff company with the name SUPER CASSETTES as dominant part thereof was incorporated 20 years prior thereto in 1983. The business being carried on through the website www.supercassetes.com is also of films i.e. same as that of the plaintiff. Even though, the plaintiff is not the registered owner of the trademark SUPER CASSETTES but again it is the unrebutted evidence that SUPER CASSETTES is the corporate name and trade name of the plaintiff. This court in YAHOO,INC VS. AKASH ARORA 1999 PTC (19)201 held that internet is a global collection of computer networks linking millions of public and private computers around the world; internet is now recognized as an international system, a communication medium that allows anyone from any part of the globe with access to the internet to freely exchange information and share data; it provides information about various corporations and products. It was further held that the law relating to passing off is fairly well settled; the principle underlying the action is that no man is entitled to carry on his business in such a way as to lead to the belief that he is carrying on business of another or to lead to the belief that he is carrying on or has any connection with the business carried on by another man; that passing off action is a common law remedy; if the contesting parties are involved in the same line or similar line of business, there is grave and immense possibility for confusion and deception and therefore there is probability of sufferance of damage. It was further held that domain name is more than a mere internet address for it also identifies the internet site to those who reach it, much like a person's name identifies a particular person or more relevant to trademark disputes, a company's name identifies a specific company. This court also cited with approval MARKS & SPENCER VS. One- in-a MILLION 1998 FSR 265 where it was held that the name Marks & Spencer could not have been chosen for any other reason than that it was associated with the well-known Retailing Group and that where the value of a name consists solely in its resemblance to the name or trademark of another enterprise, the court will normally assume that the public is likely to be deceived, for why else would the defendant chose it. It was further held that anyone coming upon a website called http;//marks&spencer.co.uk would naturally assume that it was that of the plaintiff in that case.