Recently, the Delhi High Court on
July 3, 2017 in the case of Yahoo Inc vs
Mr Rinshad Rinu & Ors., directed payment of INR 5 lakh as damages to US based Yahoo Inc, for trademark
infringement by a website called ‘YahooKochi’.
The Court restrained the website from using its trademark or any other
deceptively similar mark.
Brief Background
Mr. Rinshad Rinu & Others (hereinafter collectively
referred to as ‘the Defendants’) operated under the trademark “YahooKochi”,
which was unquestionably similar to Yahoo Inc’s (hereinafter referred to as the
‘Plaintiff’) trademark YAHOO, registered in various classes. Present suit was
filed for permanent injunction restraining the Defendant no. 1 to 5 from;
- offering services and advertising using the Yahoo trademark;
- passing off their services as the Plaintiff’s;
- operating the website www.yahookochi.com;
- diluting and tarnishing the Plaintiff’s trademarks by virtue of their below par services
The Plaintiff also prayed to the Court to pass an
order directing Defendant no. 6, GoDaddy.com, the Registrar of the domain name
<yahookochi.com>, to suspend the operation of the said domain.
The Court vide its order dated October 20, 2015,
granted an ex parte ad interim
inunction in favor of the Plaintiff. The Defendants no.1 to 5 were restrained
from using the mark YAHOO in relation to the trademark as well as domain name
obtained by them, and Defendant no.6 was directed to suspend the domain name
within one week from the date of receipt of order.
Since, the Defendants refrained themselves from
appearing, they were proceeded ex parte
and the ex parte injunction was
confirmed.
Issue
Whether the Defendant infringed the Plaintiff’s YAHOO
trademark?
Contentions: Plaintiff
The Counsel submitted that the registered trademark
YAHOO, which was well recognized and reputed, was owned by the Plaintiff.
Referring to the website ‘www.yahookochi.com’ and also to the logo used by the Defendant
which was strikingly similar to the old logo used by the Plaintiff, it was
contended that the Defendants clearly infringed the trademark in question. It
was brought to the Court’s attention that the Defendants refused to change
their name, even after the Plaintiff’s notice dated May 23, 2015.
Judgment
The Court held that the Plaintiff operated various websites under its
YAHOO trademark and that the mark used by Defendants was dishonest. It further
stated that the font used by the Defendants to represent YAHOO in their trading
name was identical to the unique stylized font which the Plaintiff used to
represent its YAHOO trade mark till 2014. It was concluded that the
potentiality of the mark was enormous on the internet as the Plaintiff had a
wide internet presence. The Court thus established infringement of the Plaintiff’s
trademark. The Court assessed the cost at INR 4,91,114 (approx. USD 7675) and awarded
compensatory damages of INR 2 lacs (approx. USD 3125), and punitive damages
worth INR 3 lacs (approx. USD 4688) to the Plaintiff.
No comments:
Post a Comment