Source: www.ipindia.nic.in
Introduction
Board of Control for Cricket in India (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Plaintiff’) is the apex governing body for cricket in India. Grace India Sports Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as ‘the defendant’) claims to be organizing cricket talent hunts/camps and cricket tournaments. It was alleged by the Plaintiff that the services of the Defendant are identical/similar to those provided by the Plaintiff.
Board of Control for Cricket in India (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Plaintiff’) is the apex governing body for cricket in India. Grace India Sports Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as ‘the defendant’) claims to be organizing cricket talent hunts/camps and cricket tournaments. It was alleged by the Plaintiff that the services of the Defendant are identical/similar to those provided by the Plaintiff.
The notice of motion was taken out in an
infringement and passing off suit filed by the Plaintiff. In the order dated
January 16, 2018, passed by the Bombay High Court, reference was made to the
order dated December 14, 2017, which was passed by the Learned Single Judge,
S.C. Gupte, upon the ad-interim application also dated December 14, 2017
instituted by the Plaintiff against the Defendant, wherein the Defendant, who
was absent at the said hearing was given one more opportunity to show cause in
the matter. The order further stated that in case the Defendant refused to
accept service or failed to appear at the next hearing, the matter would be
heard ex parte, and appropriate
ad-interim orders would be passed.
Plaintiff’s Contentions
The timeline of the submissions, regarding the
events related to the suit of the Plaintiff are as follows:
Date
|
Event
|
2007
|
Plaintiff designed
and adopted logos comprising a batsman swinging a bat as if hitting a ball
along with the expressions “IPL”, “Indian Premier League”, and “Twenty 20”.
Plaintiff has since
been using the trademarks “IPL”, “Indian Premier League”, “IPLT20” and
“IPLTwenty20” in relation to a unique concept cricket tournament and goods
and services associated therewith.
The abovementioned logos
as a whole and in their entirety are unique, novel, catchy and attractive.
Plaintiff has also
duly registered the trademarks “IPL”, “Indian Premier League”, “Indian
Premier League Twenty 20” and “IPL Twenty 20” in classes 09, 16, 18, 22, 25,
28, 32, 35, 37, 39, 41 and 42.
|
2008
|
Plaintiff hosted the
first Indian Premier League Twenty20 tournament, popularly known as “IPLT20”
and/or “IPL” featuring cricket matches with 20 overs a side.
However, the
Plaintiff had commenced promoting and publicising the said event much before,
through wide and extensive advertising, in India as well as abroad. Plaintiff
spent several crores of rupees in the process.
By the time the
tournament started in India, the aforesaid trademarks had already gained
popularity as indicating the cricket matches organized by the Plaintiff and
are till date associated exclusively with the Plaintiff and its good and
services.
|
August 24, 2016
|
Defendant sent a
letter to the Plaintiff communicating its intention to conduct a cricket
tournament for junior players under the name/mark “Indian Junior Players
League Twenty 20”/ “IJPL T20”.
|
September 15, 2016
|
Article in Times of
India titled ‘Gambhir Unveils Indian Junior Players League’ wherein it was inter-alia
reported that ‘Star batsman Gautam Gambhir unveiled the Indian Junior Players
League Twenty 20 (IJPL T20), a talent hunt for boys aged 14 to 18 years’. The
said article confirmed that Gautam Gambhir, a member of the Indian Cricket
Team is associated with the Defendant and its proposed junior cricket league.
|
October, 2016
|
|
November 11, 2016
|
Plaintiff issued
cease and desist notice through its advocates upon the Defendant, inter alia calling upon it to cease
use of the name/mark “IJPL” and the aforementioned domain names.
|
December 01, 2016
|
Plaintiff learned of
the Defendant’s continuing activities vide newspaper article in Dainik
Bhaskar (Jaipur Edition).
|
December 08, 2016
|
Plaintiff issued
letter to all subordinate State Associations informing them about the IJPL
tournament organized by the Defendant and further informing them that the
said tournament has not been approved or authorized by the Plaintiff.
|
December 09, 2016
|
The Saurashtra
Cricket Association sent a copy of e-mail that it had received from the
Defendant inviting young students to participate in the IJPL. The e-mail
stated that the selection will be done by Ranji Trophy players and coaches,
and that the event will culminate into a National Tournament of day-night
matches which will be held in Mumbai.
|
December 13, 2016
|
Correspondence
between the Defendant and Plaintiff wherein the Defendant refuted the
allegations put forward in the Plaintiff’s cease and desist notice, and the
Plaintiff responded by saying that as the Plaintiff is the governing body for
cricket in India, all tournaments need prior approval of the Plaintiff; that
no such approval had been given to the tournament being organized by the
Defendant; and that players participating in non-approved tournaments cannot
be a part of the Plaintiff’s future activities.
|
December 14, 2016
|
Defendant sought a
meeting with the Plaintiff to resolve the issue, however, no such meeting was
held and the Plaintiff did not give any approval for the tournament.
|
August, 2017
|
Plaintiff learned
that the Defendant was planning to hold a cricket tournament under the
name/mark IJPL T20 in Dubai from September 19- September 30, 2017, whereas it
had so far (since December 2016) been under the bona fide belief that the
Defendant had indeed ceased use of the name/mark “IJPL” in compliance with
its demands.
Plaintiff
additionally learned that Defendant was no longer using the domain www.juniorsipl.com,
however was using the domains www.ijplt20.com
and www.ijplth.com.
|
September 09, 2017
|
Plaintiff published a
media advisory on its website against IJPL and its domain names.
|
September 10, 2017
|
Plaintiff sent an
email to all its affiliate State cricket units informing that IJPL did not
have due authorization from it and to dissociate from it.
|
October 11, 2017
|
Plaintiff sent a
second cease and desist notice to the Defendant.
Thereafter, the
Plaintiff learned upon visiting the Defendant’s website that it has now
started the registration process for IJPL T20 Season 2, thereby initiating
the present suit.
|
January 3 and 4, 2018
|
The aforesaid order dated
January 16, 2018 was duly served upon the Defendant vide email and courier
respectively.
|
January 12 and 15,
2018
|
Notice of the present
ad-interim application proceedings was further served on the Defendant vide
emails.
|
Based on the above sequence of events, the Plaintiff
contended that:
- The Defendants are using the impugned trade mark IJPL and IJPL T20 and the impugned domain names www.ijplt20.com, www.juniorsipl.com and www.ijplth.com which are visually, structurally, phonetically, aurally, closely and deceptively similar to the Plaintiff’s trademarks.
- The Plaintiff’s mark has earned the status of well-known mark in India.
- There is real and actual confusion in the minds of consumer between the Plaintiff’s trademark and Defendants mark.
- The Plaintiff’s are likely to suffer irreparable injury due to infringement of its mark by the Defendant.
Court’s Analysis
- Since the Defendant did not appear on the date of the hearing, and therefore, as per the previous order passed by the Learned Single Judge, Hon’ble Justice S.J. Kathawalla., heard the Plaintiff’s submissions and passed an ex parte order upon the Defendant.
- Hon’ble Justice Kathawalla., upon due consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and evidence as tendered by the Plaintiff in the matter, was pleased to pass order in favour of the Plaintiff.
- According to the order, dated January 16, 2018, strong prima facie case was made out by the Plaintiff that the rival trademarks of the Defendant were found to be deceptively similar and for identical/similar services/activities.
- In so far as passing off was concerned, the Judge also found real and actual confusion had already taken place as several news articles had referred to the Defendant’s tournament as “Youth IPL” and “Indian Junior Premier League”.
- Therefore, the Defendant was permanently injuncted from infringing the Plaintiff’s trademarks “IPL” and “IPLTwenty20” by using “IJPL” or “IJPL T20” in respect of its activities/services and also the impugned domain names www.ijplt20.com, www.juniorsipl.com and www.ijplth.com.
No comments:
Post a Comment