INFO EDGE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. SHAILESH GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff by filing the present suit has sought for a decree of permanent injunction restraning the defendants, their servants, agents from operating any business , selling, offering for sale advertising and/or in any manner dealing in the internet services under the trademark/domain name "NAUKRI.COM' or any other mark/domain name, which is. identical or deceptively similar to the plaintiff's trade mark/domain name 'NAUKRI.COM' and also for rendition of accounts and damages. The plaintiff has also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for an ad interim injunction restraining the defendants from operating any business and/ or selling or offering for sale or advertising and in any manner dealing in the aforesaid trade mark /domain name of the plaintiff or any other trade mark/domain name, which may be identical and/or deceptively similar with the aforesaid mark/name.

(2.) The plaintiff adopted the name 'NAKURI.COM .on 27.3.1997 . and since then the plaintiff is carrying on its businesss under the aforesaid domain name, which according to the plaintiff has become one of the leading websites in India. The plaintiff has contended that the said domain name has assumed a distinctive ness as the plaintiff has chosen a Hindi word and use the same in the English script as early as in the March, 1997 in the internet world, which is dominated by the English domain names. The plaintiff has also put on record many press-clippings and write-ups to indicate that the plaintiff has established an enviable reputation, because of which the said domain name has also assumed a secondary meaning. Consequenly, it is stated that in view of such advertisements and publications by the plaintiff, the said domain name 'NAUKRI.COM' has become completely associated with the plaintiff and in the internet parlance and when used with the suffix com, the word NAUKRI has attained a secondary meaning to connote and denote the services offered by the plaintiff. The plaintiff also contended that the defendant's website jobsourceindia.com, offers similar services as that of the plaintiff's site NAUKRI.COM and, accordingly, the defendant is carrying on business in the same field and is a competitor of the plaintiff and, therefore, with a view to damage the plaintiff's business and to capitalise on the goodwill of NAUKRI.COM, the defendant began using a similar domain name similar to the plaintiff, under the name and style NAUKARI.COM. It is alleged that the aforesaid use by the defendant of a similar domain name as that of the plaintiff was dishonest and was done with had faith, particularly in view of the fact that the said NAUKARI.COM was merely being used as a hyperlink i.e. a link to lead any user who types NAUKARI.COM to JOBSOURCEINDIA.COM. According to the plaintiff, the said dishonest and bad faith on the part of the defendant is evident from the fact that though the defendant had registered both the domain names JOBSOURCEINDIA.COM & NAUKARI.COM in 1999 itself, it designed its home site under the name JOBSOURCEINDIA.COM and also decided to adopt and use NAUKARI.COM to attract web-surfers & innocent users for diverting the traffic to the website JOBSOURCEINOIA.COM as any user, who by mistake types NAUKARI.COM instead of NAUKRI.COM, would automatically reach the website JOBSOURCEINDIA.COM. By adopting the said diversion of traffic from the website of the plaintiff to the website of the defendant, huge loss is suffered by the plaintiff, who had invested time, money and effort in creating, developing and establishing the domain name NAUKRI.COM

(3.) Mr. Rajiv Nayar, Senior Advocate appearing for the plaintiff submitted that there is passing off the services and goods of the defendant as that of the plaintiff's trade mark NAUKRI.COM, which is identical to or deceptively similar to the plaintiff's said trademark/domain name. He submitted that the domain name/trade mark adopted by the defendant is deceptively similar to the domain name/ trademark of the plaintiff and that the defendant is copying verbatim the format and the name of the plaintiff and that the said defendant being in the same business and field of activity as that of the plaintiff, there is grave and immense possibility of confusion and deception and, therefore, the trade mark/domain name of the plaintiff is required to be protected and an injunction is required to be issued in terms of the prayer in the application filed by the plaintiff under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It was also submitted that the defendant registered both the domain names i.e JOBSOURCEINOIA..COM and NAUKARI.COM after two years of the plaintiff registering its domain name and, therefore, dishonesty is writ large as confusion is sought to be created by the defendant by diverting the internet traffic from the website of the plaintiff to the website of the defendant. He also stated that the facts alleged in the plaint and in the application, coupled with the documentary evidence placed on record, would reveal the dishonest intention of the defendant and that it is a case of bad faith and, therefore, the plaintiff is entitled for grant of a temporary injunction.