The Delhi High Court ruled that the adoption and use of the websites containing the well-known Mark ‘SAMSUNG’ is dishonest and a calculated attempt intended to create a false impression that those websites are authorised service centres of the Plaintiffs, and such activities have the tendency to cause confusion, deception, and potential reputational loss to the Plaintiffs if any deficiency arises from the services availed through those impugned websites.
Accordingly, the Court opined that the Plaintiffs had made out a prima facie case, and the balance of convenience was in their favour, as the Defendants’ activities were likely to mislead consumers and cause irreparable harm to the Plaintiffs’ goodwill and reputation.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Tejas Karia observed that the unauthorised use of deceptively similar variants of the reputed mark ‘Samsung’ thereto on rogue websites is likely to mislead consumers into believing an association with the Plaintiffs, and therefore, restrained the Defendants/ their partners, affiliates, from using the graphics, website design, logo and images of the Plaintiffs, and their website, including as part of domain.
The Bench also directed the defendants to suspend/ disable their domain from displaying any picture or doing any act representing their association with the Plaintiffs, thereby leading to infringement of the Plaintiffs’ ‘SAMSUNG’ Marks. The Bench passed this restraining order after finding that ‘SAMSUNG’ has acquired goodwill and distinctiveness, since its incorporation, with substantial turnover, multiple device and word mark registrations, and recognition across diverse categories of products and services.
Briefly, the Plaintiff, i.e., Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., a global leader in electronics whose trademark ‘SAMSUNG’ is a well-known mark in India, has sought a permanent injunction against WWW.SAMSUNGSERVICECENTREHVDERABAD.COM (the Defendants) for trademark and copyright infringement. The Plaintiffs contended that Defendants are unauthorised websites that use the well-known Mark ‘Samsung’ and its artistic works to attract traffic by misrepresenting to the public that they are authorised service providers of the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs also argued that the Impugned Websites, whose domains contain the ‘SAMSUNG’ mark, are a dishonest and calculated attempt to create a false impression and cause confusion among unsuspecting customers looking for genuine repair services.
Appearances:
Advocates Pravin Anand, Saif Khan, and Prajjwal Kushwaha, for the Plaintiff
NA, for the Defendants
