Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Case List
o IPR Case List
o Case List-Contracts
o Case List-Corporate
o Case List-Evidence
o Case List-Procedures
o Case List-Tax
o Case List-Technology
Contract Law
o Fundamentals
Offer
Acceptance
Consideration
Competence of Parties
Privity
Undue Influence
o Indemnity and Guarantee
o Bailment
o Agency
o Partnership
o Sale of Goods
o Interpretation of Contracts
Intellectual Property
o Copyright
o Patent
o Trade Mark
o Passing Off
o Design
o Personality Rights
o Geographical Indication
Technology
Corporate Law
Banking Law
Competition Law
aaLAWchak
FACTS
The Respondent (Sifynet Solutions (P) Ltd.) had registered domain names
http://www.siffynet.com and http://www.siffynet.net which were similar to the Plaintiff’s
domain name http://www.sifynet.com. Appellant (Satyam Infoway Ltd.) had considerable
reputation in the market and had registered the name ‘Sifynet’ and various other names with
the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names (ICANN) and WIPO. The word ‘Sify’ was first
coined by the plaintiff using elements from its corporate name Satyam Infoway and had a
very wide reputation and goodwill in the market. The Appellant was incorporated in the year
1995 and had registered its various domain names using the prefix ‘Sify’ in the year 1999.
The Respondent started carrying on its business under the above stated domain names since
5th June, 2001.
On coming to know of use of the word ‘Siffy’ by the Respondent, the Appellant filed a suit in
the City Civil Court against the Respondent on the basis that the Respondent was passing off
its business and services by using the appellant’s business name and domain name. An
application for temporary injunction was also filed.
The City Civil Court Judge decided in favour of appellants and allowed the application for
temporary injunction on the following grounds:
Aggrieved by the decision of the City Civil Court, the Respondent approached, the High
Court, which reversed the order of the City Civil Court, on the following grounds:
Hence, the Appellant filed a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court.
ISSUES:
2) Whether internet domain names are subject to the legal norms applicable to other
intellectual properties such as trademarks.
3) Would the principles of trademark law and in particular those relating to passing off
apply?
HELD
ISSUE NO. 1
Issue No. 1 was answered in the affirmative and to come to the such conclusion, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court gave the following reasons:
With the increase of commercial activity on the internet, a domain name is also used
as a business identifier;
Domain name identifies the specific internet site;
As more and more commercial enterprises trade or advertise their presence on the
web, domain names have become more and more valuable and the potential for
dispute is high. Whereas a large number of trademarks containing the same name can
comfortably co-exist because they are associated with different products, belong to
business in different jurisdictions etc, the distinctive nature of the domain name
providing global exclusivity is much sought after,
The fact that many consumers searching for a particular site are likely, in the first
place, to try and guess its domain name has further enhanced this value.
Issue No. 2 & 3 were commonly answered in the affirmative as they were interlinked and to
come to the said conclusion, the Hon’ble Supreme Court gave the following reasons:
The use of similar domain name may lead to diversion of users as ordinary customers
seeking to locate the functions available under one domain name may be confused
with another domain name which may offer dissimilar services. Thus, the customers
may conclude misrepresentation, which will result in loss of customers.
Further, a use of similar domain name has all the ingredients of a passing off action,
such as preservation of reputation and goodwill, safeguarding the public,
misrepresentation by the defendant, loss or likelihood of loss. Thus, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court held that that a domain name may have all the characteristics of a
trade mark and one can also file an action for passing for the same.
ON MERITS/FACTS
The matter was ruled in favour of the Appellant, on the following grounds:
(Basis: 5 lac subscribers, 840 cyber cafes, 54 points of presence all over India, first Indian
Co. To be listed in NASDAQ, extensive coverage in leading national newspapers, sales
figures, expenses incurred on advertisement of the mark ‘Sify’, 40 Registered Trade Marks,
with the prefix ‘Sify’)
There is close visual similarity and phonetic similarity between ‘Sify’ and ‘Siffy’ and
there is a likelihood of confusion.
No proper justification by the Respondent, as to its adoption of ‘Siffy’.
Appellant was a prior adopter and prior user.
The argument of separate business stood negated on account of exclusivity of domain
name symbol which is accessible to all internet users as well as on account of the fact
that there were documents to the effect that the Respondent had advertised to be
provider of software solution, software development, Intranet and Extranet solutions,
etc.
The Balance of Convenience was also held to be in favour of the Appellant as it was a
prior user and the public associated the mark ‘Sify’ with the Appellant
Full Text
Advertisements
Report this ad
Report this ad
Share this:
Facebook
WhatsApp
Twitter
LinkedIn
Google
Email
Print
Like this:
Stephen Koenig vs. Arbitrator, National Internet Exchange of India (Nixi) & Anr. AND
Jagdish Purohit vs. Stephen Koenig
Stephen Koenig vs. Arbitrator, National Internet Exchange of India (Nixi) & Anr. AND
Jagdish Purohit vs. Stephen Koenig 2012(49)PTC304(Del), 186(2012)DLT43 FACTS: The
case is about dispute regarding the domain name 'internet.in'. The present petitions under
Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 ('Act') were directed against an Award
passed by the sole…
In "Domain Names"
Kamal Trading Co. and Ors. v. Gillette U.K. Ltd. 1988 (8) PTC 1 (BOM) Brief facts:
Respondent was a subsidiary of an American company, Gillette Company, in U.K. The
Gillette Company and its subsidiaries had been carrying on worldwide business of
manufacture and sale of safety razor blades, safety razors,…
October 1, 2013October 27, 2013 Vivek Kumar VermaDomain Names, Intellectual Property
Rights, Trade Markdomain name, internet, Passing Off, protection of domain names, Satyam,
Satyam Infoway, sify, trade marks, word mark
Leave a Reply
6c705c0483 /2013/10/01/satyam guest
1533223464
( Log Out / Change ) ( Log Out / Change )
1533223211428
Post navigation
Previous Post Carlsberg India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Radico Khaitan Ltd.
Next Post T.V. Today Network Ltd. & Anr. v. Kesari Singh Gujjar & Ors.
Advertisements
Report this ad
Search
Search for:
Follow Indian Case Laws via Email
Enter your email address to follow this website and receive notifications of new posts by
email.
Follow
DISCLAIMER
Regulations of Bar Council of India do not permit us to advertise about our website and our
works. All the contents on Indian Case Laws are only for general information and do not
constitute advice. Any content of the website should not be interpreted as soliciting or
advertising nor should any reader act (or refraining from making) any decision on the basis of
any statement contained herein without seeking professional advice.
Stay Connected
Advertise With Us
Facebook
Law Solutions
Twitter
Media Partner
www.knowledgesteez.com
www.creativegenes.in
Blog at WordPress.com.
Close and accept
Privacy & Cookies: This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this website,
you agree to their use.
To find out more, including how to control cookies, see here: Cookie Policy
Follow
o indiancaselaws.wordpress.com
o Customize
o Follow
o Sign up
o Log in
o Copy shortlink
o Report this content
o Manage subscriptions
o Collapse this bar
%d bloggers like this:
<img src="https://pixel.wp.com/b.gif?v=noscript"
style="height:0px;width:0px;overflow:hidden" alt="" />