1999 (4) TMI 635 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Grant of Leave u/r 147 and 148 of the Bombay High Court (Original Side) Rules, 1980.
2. Action in passing off regarding the use of the domain name "RADIFF".
3. Allegation of infringement of copyright.
4. Likelihood of deception or confusion between the domain names "REDIFF" and "RADIFF".
5. Principles of passing off and the protection of domain names as trademarks.

Summary:

1. Grant of Leave u/r 147 and 148:
Leave was granted to the plaintiffs to take out a Notice of Motion and to amend the plaint and the Notice of Motion in terms of the draft amendment. The defendants waived service, and by consent, the Notice of Motion was taken up for hearing.

2. Action in Passing Off:
The plaintiffs sought a permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from using the mark/domain name "RADIFF" or any similar name to pass off their business or goods as those of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs argued that the defendants' use of "RADIFF" was intended to cause confusion and mislead the public into believing an association with the plaintiffs.

3. Allegation of Infringement of Copyright:
The plaintiffs also sought an injunction against the defendants from using the literary or artistic work found on the plaintiffs' web page without their license, alleging copyright infringement.

4. Likelihood of Deception or Confusion:
The defendants contended that "RADIFF" was coined from the words 'radical', 'information', 'future', and 'free', and argued there was no likelihood of confusion between "RADIFF" and "REDIFF". They claimed that the manner of accessing information on the Internet would prevent any confusion. However, the court found this explanation false and held that the similarity in domain names could mislead users into believing both belonged to the same source.

5. Principles of Passing Off and Protection of Domain Names:
The court reiterated established principles of passing off, emphasizing that no one is entitled to carry on business in a way that leads to the belief it is connected with another's business. The court cited several cases, including *Marks & Spencer P.I.C. v. One in a Million* and *Yahoo. Inc. v. Akash Arora*, to highlight the importance of domain names and their protection as trademarks. The court found that the defendants' adoption of "RADIFF" was intended to trade upon the plaintiffs' reputation and granted the injunction sought by the plaintiffs.

Conclusion:
The Notice of Motion was made absolute in favor of the plaintiffs, restraining the defendants from using the domain name "RADIFF" and other related reliefs. The operation of the order was stayed for three weeks upon the defendants' request.