Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
Delhi High Court has refused to grant interim injunction by rejecting an application made by the trademark owner of “BOOKMYSHOW” for restraining the use of prefix “BOOKMY” by “BOOKMYSPORT”. The application for interim injunction was requested in the suit filed by Bigtree Entertainment Private Ltd, which is the registered owner of trademark “BOOKMYSHOW ” and which also runs a popular online portal www.bookmyshow.com, for e-ticket booking for movies, entertainment shows and sports events. Similar online portal, named www.bookmysport.in, was launched in 2015, and provides e-booking facility for sports events.
The suit was filed alleging that “BOOKYMSPORT” was deceptively similar to “BOOKMYSHOW”, and the ground for filing of suit was that the prefix “BOOKMY” was distinctively associated with “BOOKMYSHOW” and that the defendant was attempting to exploit the goodwill and reputation of “BOOKMYSHOW”. The court held that for determining the issue whether the defendant’s use of the prefix common to both trademarks, “BOOKMY”, amounted to infringement and/or passing off of the plaintiff’s mark is totally dependent on the ancillary question of whether the prefix is a descriptive phrase or an invented term.
In this case, the defendant also contended that several domain names beginning with “BOOKMY” have been in existence both before and subsequent to the plaintiff’s website and hence the plaintiff could not claim exclusivity over use of “BOOKMY”.
In this regard, court also referred to the Supreme Court decision in Reliance Industries Ltd vs Reliance Polycrete Ltd, 1997 PTC (17) 581. In the said case, it was held that existence of many other companies/firms using the name “Reliance” meant that “Reliance Industries” could not claim monopoly over the use of term “Reliance” to the exclusion of others.
While referring to the above principles, Justice Mukta Gupta held that, in the present case, defendant has placed on record examples of numerous other companies that operate with the same domain prefix, and the plaintiff has yet to put on record any evidence suggesting that the prefix “BOOKMY” is only associated in the minds of the public with the plaintiff’s business and nobody else, thus has acquired a secondary meaning and distinctiveness. Considering the fact that the words “BOOKMY” are descriptive in nature and plaintiff’s trademark “BOOKMYSHOW” has not acquired a distinctive meaning, no case for grant of injunction pending hearing of the suit is made out.
86540
103860
630
114
59824