Law Insider India

Legal News, Current Trends and Legal Insight | Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Delhi HC Issued Interim Injunction Against FanCode 11 Online Sports Platform [FanCode v. FanCode 11]

2 min read
Delhi High Court Law Insider

Sakina Tashrifwala

Published on: 25 November 2022 at 23:01 IST

In a trademark infringement case against the website “FanCode 11,” the Delhi High Court has issued ad interim ex parte injunction in favour of the proprietors of Dream11 with regard to their online sports platform FanCode.

Sporta Technologies Private Limited, which runs the fantasy sports website Dream11, was able to provide a “strong prima facie case” in favour of itself, Justice Navin Chawla wrote in the judgement.

In its order dated November 9, the court stated, “Additionally, the balance of convenience favours the plaintiffs over the defendant. If an ad-interim injunction is not issued in their favour, both the plaintiffs and the general public are likely to suffer severe, irreparable harm.”

The case before the court concerned a claim made by Sporta Technologies Private Limited, which claimed to have registered the trademark “Dream-11” for its fantasy sports platform in 2012.

Additionally, it was claimed that the corporation has adopted the mark “FanCode” for its multi-sport aggregator platform, which provides content, merchandise, and live streaming of sporting events.

According to the lawsuit, one Kundan Roy, the proprietor of the contested website and the mobile application “Fancode11,” adopted the mark dishonestly and purposefully combined the two Sporta Technologies trademarks “Dream-11” and “FanCode.”

The defendant’s mobile application also has a similar appearance and feel to the plaintiffs’, raising the prospect of deceit, the court was informed.

Advocate Shwetasree Majumdar, speaking on behalf of Sporta Technologies, said that Roy’s YouTube channel, which uses the mark “FANKODE- 11,” cannot be distinguished from the mark “FanCode” by simply replacing the letter “C” with the letter “K.”

The court ruled in favour of the plaintiff and issued the following order until further orders: “In view of the foregoing, there shall be an ad-interim ex-parte order of injunction in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendant in terms of the prayers made in paragraphs 32(a) to (c) of the present application.”