9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (7) TMI 133X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r domain name may lead to a diversion of users which could result from such users mistakenly accessing one domain name instead of another - thus direction issued to the National Internet Exchange of India c/o ISPAI (Internet Service Providers Association of India) to the Registrar of domain name M/s A to Z Domains Solutions Pvt. Ltd. to transfer the domain name cokestudio.in to plaintiff No.1. - CS(OS) 2080/2011 & I.A. 13582/2011 - - - Dated:- 8-5-2013 - Manmohan,JJ. For the Petitioner : Ms. Nancy Roy, Advocate For the Respondent : None JUDGMENT Manmohan, J (Oral):- 1. Present suit has been filed for injunction and damages for infringement of trade mark, passing off and unfair competition. 2. The prayer clause in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n favour of the Plaintiffs and against the Defendant. 3. However, at the outset, learned counsel for plaintiffs states that she does not wish to press prayer C . The said statement is accepted by this Court and plaintiffs are held bound by the same. 4. The relevant facts of the present case are that plaintiff No.1 is the registered proprietor of the well-known trade marks COKE and COKE STUDIO. 5. In 2008, plaintiff No.1 launched a Television Series in Pakistan called COKE STUDIO‟ featuring live musical performances. The program focuses on a fusion of the diverse musical influences in Pakistan including eastern classical, folk and contemporary popular music. 6. In the plaint, it is stated that the series COKE STUDIO is extre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... used the ex parte evidence as well as documents placed on record, this Court is of the opinion that plaintiffs have proved the facts stated in the plaint and have also exhibited the relevant documents in support of their case. Since the plaintiffs‟evidence has gone unrebutted, said evidence is accepted as true and correct. 13. This Court is further of the opinion that defendant‟s act of adopting and registering of domain name www.cokestudio.in infringes the plaintiff No.1‟s registered trade marks COKE and COKE STUDIO. 14. In fact, in Kaviraj Pandit Durga Dutt Vs. Navaratna Pharmaceutical, AIR 1965 SC 980 the Apex Court has held, The action for infringement is a statutory remedy conferred on the registered proprieto ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... faith. 16. This Court is also of the opinion that defendant s adoption and registration of the domain name www.cokestudio.in being identical to plaintiff No.1,s registered trade marks COKE and COKE STUDIO is dishonest. In M/s. Satyam Infoway Ltd. vs. M/s. Sifynet Solutions Pvt. Ltd., AIR 2004 SC 3540, the Supreme Court has held as under:- 16. The use of the same or similar domain name may lead to a diversion of users which could result from such users mistakenly accessing one domain name instead of another. This may occur in e-commerce with its rapid progress and instant (and theoretically limitless) accessibility to users and potential customers and particularly so in areas of specific overlap. Ordinary consumers/users seeking to loc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
