Justice Amit Bansal, Delhi High Court
Sole Intention Is To Defraud Indian Consumers: Delhi High Court Grants Relief To Gameskraft Against Rogue Websites In Trademark Dispute
|The Delhi High Court said that Gameskraft is suffering immense losses to its goodwill and injury to its well-earned reputation on account of the unlawful activities of the rogue websites and associated mobile applications.
The Delhi High Court has granted relief to Gameskraft Technologies Private Limited against some rogue websites in a trademark dispute.
The Court was dealing with a Suit filed by Gameskraft, seeking permanent injunction and restraining the Defendants from infringing the trademark and copyright, passing off, along with other reliefs.
A Single Bench of Justice Amit Bansal remarked, “The use of plaintiff no.1’s “Rummy Culture” mark as part of the domain names and in the content of the websites, by all the defendants, the prominent display of one or more of the plaintiffs, marks on their infringing websites, as well as the near identity of the infringing websites with the plaintiffs website (in the case of defendants no. 1, 2 and 4), and the reference to the plaintiffs various gaming platforms as an assurance of credibility by various defendants, makes it wholly apparent that the sole intention of the people/entities/registrants operating the defendant websites is to defraud Indian consumers into mistakenly believing that these are the plaintiffs genuine sites or are somehow associated with/ related to the plaintiff.”
The Bench said that Gameskraft is suffering immense losses to its goodwill and injury to its well-earned reputation on account of the unlawful activities of the Defendant websites and associated mobile applications.
Senior Advocate Sandeep Sethi represented the Plaintiffs while Advocate Gaurav Barathi represented the Defendants.
Case Background
The Plaintiff-Gameskraft is one of India’s first gaming companies to build an ISO 9001:2015 certified platform. Since its inception in 2017, Gameskraft and its affiliates have catered to a growing group of skill-based players within the online gaming community, and resultantly, the companies within the group are now amongst the country’s most recognised online skill-based gaming companies, home to immensely popular, widely known and recognised platforms, i.e., Rummyculture, Playship Rummy, Pocket52, RummyPrime, Ludo Culture and RummyTime.
It uses numerous trademarks on and in connection with its online gaming platforms. These include the marks: ‘PLAYSHIP’, ‘PLEGO’, ‘LUDO SELECT’, ‘POCKET52’, ‘RUMMY’, ‘RUMMYCULTURE’,‘GAMESKRAFT’,‘CULTUREOFCHAMPIONS’, and marks that incorporate one or more of Plaintiff’s marks. It was stated that the Plaintiff’s marks are used as its corporate logos and as trademarks on its various gaming websites, advertising and marketing materials, social media pages, mobile applications/computer software, etc. It was alleged that the websites operated/owned by the Defendants mislead the members of the public into falsely believing that the same are associated with the Plaintiff.
Court’s Observations
The High Court in the above context of the case, observed, “It is evident from the above that the defendants no.1 to 16 are misleading unsuspecting users on a daily basis into downloading various unknown apps, through suspicious links on their websites, and entrapping users wanting to use the plaintiffs’ products into downloading dubious apps which have no connection whatsoever with the plaintiffs. The usage of the aforementioned websites and infringing apps is not reflected on the plaintiffs’ systems, and any money used in these apps is not deposited with the plaintiffs. Thus, the said apps pose a major financial risk to the public at large as the defendants’ rogue websites use the plaintiffs’ name for the defendants’ unjust enrichment.”
The Court added that Defendants’ modus operandi is bound to cause incalculable harm and injury to the business, goodwill and reputation of the Plaintiffs, especially, on account of the significant injury which the common citizens shall suffer.
“All profits earned by the said websites in pursuance of their illegal activities amount to unjust enrichment. … Accordingly, in the above circumstances, the plaintiffs have demonstrated a prima facie case. The plaintiffs will suffer an irreparable loss and injury if an injunction is not granted in their favour. Balance of convenience also lies in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants”, it further noted.
The Court, therefore, restrained the Defendants from using the Plaintiff’s marks and marks that incorporate one or more of Plaintiff’s marks. It also restrained the Defendants from registering any domain name or SEO keywords/metatags containing the Plaintiff’s marks and anything deceptively similar to its marks.
“Defendants no.12 to 16, their directors, partners, proprietors, officers, affiliates, servants, employees, and all others in capacity of principal or agent acting for and, on their behalf, or anyone claiming through, by or under them, are directed to take down their respective webpages … Defendant no. 16 is directed to take down its accounts on YouTube, Instagram, X (formerly Twitter) and any other social media websites that host content infringing on one or more of the plaintiffs’ marks and/or copyrights”, it ordered.
Accordingly, the High Court directed the Defendants to comply with its Order within seven days and listed the case on September 26, 2025.
Cause Title- Gameskraft Technologies Private Limited and Anr. v. John Doe and Ors. (Case Number: CS(COMM) 594/2025)
Appearance:
Plaintiffs: Senior Advocate Sandeep Sethi, Advocates Arun Srikumar, Abhyudaya Shishodia, and Ritwik Gupta.
Defendants: Advocate Gaurav Barathi