Recently, Delhi Hight Court adjudged the matter of another trademark infringement between the Plaintiff, Moonshine Technology Private Limited and Tictok Skill Games Private Limited & Ors as defendants. The complainant asserts that he is a member of the Baazi Group of Companies, which includes (for short, “Baazi Group”). With the filing of the lawsuit, the plaintiff sought for an injunction that will last forever and will prevent the defendants from infringing on plaintiff’s registered trademarks and from engaging in unfair business practises, among other things. The plaintiff also sought costs, damages, and the return of property. Mr Chander Lall, senior lawyer for the plaintiff along with  a team comprising of Advocate Ananya Chug, Subhash Bhutoria and Amit Panigrahi filed the complaint on behalf of the plaintiff. With the intent of passing off their services as the plaintiff’s, the defendant No. 1 dishonestly began utilising the term “Baazi” in relation to the services that they were offering. Distinguished senior counsel argued that, according to Section 29(3) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (often referred to as the “T.M. Act”), the court was required to infer that confusion would be created to the general public as well as within the trade community.

It was determined that the phrase “Bazi” had the same meaning as “WinZo’s Baazi,” which is a betting game. In images and printouts taken from the defendants’ websites, there is no apostrophe “s” represented in WinZo. The defendants have made a clear replica of the name ‘Baazi’ by adding it to their registered trademark, which is “winZo,” in order to gain an unfair advantage over their competitors. It was argued by the plaintiff’s counsel that the source identification must be compared in order to make comparisons, and that the common terms in the infringing trademark could not be eliminated in order to do so. The judgement in Marico Limited v. Agri Tech Foods Limited, 2010 SCC Online Del 3806, has been used as authority for this ruling. Anr. is also a good example of this.

As a result of Venugopal v. Ushodaya Enterprises Ltd. and Cadila Healthcare Ltd. v Gujarat Cooperative Milk Marketing Federation Ltd., 2009 SCC OnLine Del 2786, the Gujarat Cooperative Milk Marketing Federation Ltd. has been declared insolvent. According to the plaintiff’s legal team, the defendants should be barred from using their trademarks in the future due to the obvious violation of the plaintiff’s registered trademark. A general term in Urdu, the word “Baazi” means “bet” or “game,” and it is used to refer to both.

After all, such a term could not possibly have been registered in the first place. Act. This claim was made in order to demonstrate that wherever the term “Bazi” is used in the vernacular or informally, it always refers to wagering on a game of chance. This would be a question of evidence that the plaintiff would have to show, according to learned counsel. The rulings in the case of Phonepe Pvt Ltd v. Ezy Services & Anr., 2021 SCC OnLine Del 2635, have been cited as authority for this decision. Given that there was no prima facie basis for trademark infringement established, the plaintiff was not entitled to an injunction against the infringing party.

It was solely to characterise the services that were being offered that the name “Baazi” was employed, and it was descriptive of the services. Upon examination of the records provided by the plaintiff, it became clear that the Baazi Group had transferred 16 trademarks for the paltry price of Rs.1,000/-.

In his submission, learned counsel cited the decision in Amritdhara Pharmacy vs Satyadeo Gupta AIR 1963 SC 449, which ruled that the name could not be divided and that the term could not be split. It was easy to determine who was providing the services since defendant No.1 utilised its registered brand of “WinZo” to identify the businesses who were delivering the services to the public. There would be no mistake simply because the term “Baazi” is used on both gaming websites in the same way. The verdicts in Vikas Makhija v. The Bengal Phenyle & Allied Products (P) 2001 SCC OnLine Del 643, Peshawar Soap and Chemicals Ltd. v. Godrej Soap Ltd. and Hindustan Pencils Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s. Hindustan Pencils Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s. Hindustan Pencils Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s. Hindustan

The India Stationery Products Co. & Anr. was founded in 1989 and is located in Del 34. In his closing argument, learned senior counsel for the plaintiff reiterated that under Sections 29(1), 29(2)(c), and 29(3) of the T.M. Act, a presumption had to be drawn in the plaintiff’s favour, on the basis of the identical use of the term “Baazi” for gaming services, which would cause confusion among consumers.

It was claimed that the words “Baazi” and “WinZo” were being utilised as indicators of origin in conjunction with the term “Baazi.” Because the terms were employed in the same colour and font with the same prominence, it may be inferred that the defendant No.1 was branding it with the word in question. The hashtag “#WinZOBaazi” has been trending on Twitter. A pattern of ongoing infringement by the defendant no.1 has resulted in the plaintiff being granted temporary injunction protection. The defendants were well aware that the plaintiff’s trademark “Baazi” was well-known, and they sought to capitalise on that reputation in order to increase their income.

It was argued that the defendants were unable to assert the defences set out in Sections 30 and 35 because they lacked bona fide in their claims. The use of the term “WinZoBaazi” would cause confusion in the minds of the participants, who would believe that this was yet another game supplied by the plaintiff. Neither the plaintiff nor the defendants agreed on the circumstances of prior instances cited by the learned counsel for the defendants, arguing that the facts of the present case were significantly different from those of the earlier cases. In addition, learned senior counsel noted that the defendants had relied on the decision of Hindustan Pencils (supra), in which the court had expressly said that delay was not fatal to a case when infringement and passing off were shown. On the 28th of November, 2018, an Assignment Agreement was signed between Baazi Networks Pvt. Ltd. and Baazi Networks Pvt.

The following trademarks are being sought by Ltd. and the plaintiff for assignment of the trademarks stated in Ex. „A: Trademark (word) BAAZI; POKER BAAzi; Rummy Baazi; BalleBaazi, and so on Additionally, a third Assignment Agreement was completed on the same subject matter as well as a trade mark (device). The plaintiff has gained exclusive rights in respect of whole/combination terms such as PokerBaazi as well as the single word “Baazi” via the registration of the trademark. “Baazi” is a trademark that identifies the name of the company that provided the services, in this case, the plaintiff.

Defendant No. 1 has merely used the phrase “WinZo Baazi” in the “trademark meaning” to brand its application, according to the court. The plaintiff’s firm is a booming enterprise, and they have earned a strong reputation as an internet gaming platform. It should also be highlighted that the defendants have opted to utilise the name “Team Baazi” even while the lawsuit is still pending, a name that has been in use by the plaintiff since the year 2020. “Baazi” is a Hindi/Urdu term that refers to a game in which one’s skill or strength is tested. There is no evidence to suggest that the term ‘Baazi’ is regularly used in the sector, according to the records.

Despite the fact that multiple trademark and domain name applications were mentioned in the complaint, the plaintiff has produced documents to demonstrate that they are either not in use or are being challenged. The High Court erred in its decision to get into the debate over whether the respondents-defendants and the appellant-plaintiff cater to clients from distinct classes of demographics than one another. The Court could not have inquired into whether the infringement is likely to mislead or create confusion since it did not have the authority to do so. The fact that neither party has utilised the term “Baazi” as a descriptor of their services tends to rule out the use of Section 35 of the Trade Practices Act.

Any delay in the filing of the current lawsuit, as asserted by the learned counsel for the defendants, would not be sufficient to exclude the plaintiff from obtaining relief under the law. This Court is of the considered opinion that the claim of delay has not been established and that it cannot be regarded a substantial issue in the current instance. Ordinarily, an injunction must be obtained in situations of trademark or copyright infringement, or both.

The terms “delay” and “acquiescence” are not synonymous. In the context of an action for interim injunction, delay alone is not a sufficient defence; nevertheless, delay combined with prejudice inflicted to the defendant might be considered “laches.” As McCARTHY points out on page 383: “Laches = Delay Prejudice.” For the purposes of this calculation, it is not the amount of delay or prejudice that must be weighted, but rather the size of the product of the delays and prejudice. Acquiescence is based on the actions of a person who is aware of his or her own rights but who does not claim those rights in the presence of another party.

A person’s rights should not be taken away from him unless he has behaved in a manner that would make it impossible for him to establish such rights in the first place. According to Evershed M.R. in Electrolux v Electrix (71 R.C.23), the court concurred with the position adopted by the parties (16). In order to identify his goods from those of rivals, a producer or service provider will utilise a trademark to do so. In the current instance, online gamers may be made to believe that the plaintiff’s “WinZo Baazi” service is yet another service that the plaintiff provides.

In order to protect such naive clients, the plaintiff’s trademark rights would need to be safeguarded as part of its trademark registration. With their own registered brand, WinZo, the defendants are able to do their business without hindrance under the protection afforded by that trademark, which is “WinZo.” Even if the plaintiff were to continue to use the name “Baazi,” as well as the wording utilised on its numerous websites, the plaintiff would almost definitely suffer a harm from a business competitor. The plaintiff’s case definitely wins on the basis of the “balance of convenience.” The defendants have not provided any explanation for their use of the identical term Baazi, other than the argument that ‘Baazi’ is a descriptive word.

The defendants claim that the plaintiff became envious of the $65 million investment that was about to be made in defendant No.1, which resulted in the filing of the current lawsuit. Consequently, the motion is granted, and the defendants are enjoined from further action until the case is concluded. All allusions to, or usage of, the plaintiff’s well-known brand and registered mark, “Baazi,” from their goods and services are likewise to be removed/delete/omit or withdraw, as the case may be, by the defendants.