Trademark Infringement Overview: Any person who trespasses the rights conferred by the registration of a trademark infringes the registered trademark, for example, by adopting an identical or deceptively similar trademark. An infringement must involve the infringing mark being either identical to or deceptively similar to the registered trademark, resulting in injury to the trademark owner.

Facts of the Case: The suit was filed to obtain a perpetual and mandatory injunction prohibiting the defendants from infringing on the plaintiff’s registered trademarks, engaging in passing off, unfair practices, and more, as well as to seek costs, damages, and delivery up.

The Plaintiff’s Background: The plaintiff is a part of the Baazi Group of Companies (for short, “Baazi Group”), a leading and pioneering name in the Indian gaming industry since 2014. The Baazi Group has elevated the standards in the gaming industry by offering quality gaming accessories and user experiences under its trademarks, including BAAZI, BAAZI GAMES, POKER BAAZI, RUMMYBAAZI, BALLEBAAZI, BAAZI MOBILE GAMING, and others. Over time, the brand has earned respect from its customers, who have come to appreciate the quality of its gaming services. The plaintiff has attained worldwide popularity and reputation. The plaintiff bonafidely adopted “Baazi” as its trademark to represent its business and distinguish it from other marks on record. The mark underwent several variations between 2014 and 2020, which became the trading identity, corporate, and domain names of the “Baazi Group.”

Allegations Against the Defendant: The plaintiff claimed that the defendant deceptively began using the term “Baazi” for its services, passing them off as the plaintiff’s. The defendant, a competitor of the plaintiff, started his own business by combining the plaintiff’s trademark “Baazi” with his registered trademark “Winzo,” resulting in the name “Winzo Baazi.”

Legal Questions:

Whether there is a prima facie case of infringement and unfair trade practices?
Whether the plaintiff will suffer irreparable loss or injury if the court does not grant a mandatory or perpetual injunction against the defendant?
Arguments by Plaintiff: The plaintiff argued that the first defendant (TickTock Skill Games Pvt. Ltd.) began using ‘Baazi’ in connection with their services, thereby misrepresenting them as those of the plaintiff. The plaintiff contended that the defendant’s use of ‘Baazi’ in conjunction with ‘WinZo’ on their website and mobile app as ‘WinZo Baazi’ was intended to capitalize on the plaintiff’s success. The plaintiff further argued that the defendant’s use of ‘Baazi’ as a descriptive term for wagering/betting was not genuine. Moreover, the plaintiff maintained that ‘Baazi’ could not be associated with a gaming app on a mobile phone and was clearly not descriptive of the defendant’s services.

Arguments by Defendant: The defendants claimed that they used “Baazi” as a descriptive term in “WinZo Baazi” and that it is a generic word meaning “game” in Urdu. The defendants argued that if a trademark owner develops a secondary meaning for a common word, the registered trademark should be protected. Additionally, they contended that the plaintiff was using the term “Baazi” to describe a web-based gaming application involving betting, asserting that “Baazi” merely described their services. Therefore, they argued that no one could monopolize such a descriptive term.

Court’s Judgment: The Hon’ble Delhi High Court opined that the plaintiff’s business was growing, and they had acquired distinctiveness as a web gaming platform. The Court noted that the plaintiff had been operating a popular and expanding online gaming business since 2014, and the term “Baazi” had become synonymous with the services it offered. Despite being an Urdu word, the plaintiff had cleverly adopted it, and it was not commonly used in the industry. The defendant had already established its brand under the name “WinZo” and only later began using the word “Baazi.” The Court observed that the defendant used the exact word that the plaintiff had trademarked and offered identical services.

Legal Provisions Applied: The Court determined that a prima facie case of infringement had been established under Section 29(2)(c) of the Trademarks Act, 1999, which deals with the likelihood of confusion due to identical trademarks and services. The Court presumed that there would be confusion among consumers if an injunction was not granted against the defendant’s mark. The Court also rejected the defendant’s claims under Sections 30 and 35 of the Act, finding that they had failed to demonstrate that their use of the term “Baazi” was honest in commercial matters or merely descriptive.

Delay in Filing Suit: The defendants argued that the plaintiff had delayed filing the lawsuit. However, the plaintiff’s counsel cited Hindustan Pencils Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s. India Stationery Products Co. & Anr., where the court stated that delay was not fatal in cases of infringement and passing off, as consumer interests needed to be protected.

Conclusion: The Court, referencing Midas Hygiene Industries (P) Limited and Others v. Sudhir Bhatia and Others, stated that mere delay in filing a suit was insufficient to deny relief to the plaintiff in a trademark infringement case and that an injunction was necessary if a mark was dishonestly adopted. The Court concluded that both passing off and infringement had been established. Consequently, the Hon’ble Court issued an interim injunction prohibiting the defendant from using the plaintiff’s trademarks “POKER BAAZI,” “BALLEBAAZI,” “RummyBaazi,” and others until the suit is resolved.