By Aakriti Bansal
The Delhi High Court (HC) granted a dynamic injunction to Gameskraft Technologies restraining multiple websites and mobile applications from using its registered trademarks and copyright-protected content. This order allows Gameskraft to act not only against the listed infringers, but also against new platforms that may appear during the proceedings and use similar marks or content.
For context, Gameskraft had filed a civil suit against several websites, including playshiprummy.net, gamezy82.com, and rummyventure.com. The company claimed these platforms misused its branding, offered unauthorised app downloads, and misled users by copying its names, layouts, and links.
Background of the Case
Gameskraft told the court that the infringing websites hosted unauthorised downloads for its games, including Rummy Culture, Pocket52, Playship Rummy, and Gamezy Poker. Some of these platforms redirected users to unrelated third-party sites like 82bet.com, while others claimed to offer Gameskraft鈥檚 apps without permission.
The plaintiffs argued that the registrants of these websites would continue their fraudulent activity even after a court order. The court noted this risk and observed: 鈥淚t is likely that the registrants may simply register new domain names containing the plaintiffs marks and host new websites that will continue to defraud the members of the public.鈥
Court鈥檚 Findings
Justice Amit Bansal found the infringement intentional and designed to deceive users. 鈥淭he sole intention of the people/entities/registrants operating the defendant websites is to defraud Indian consumers into mistakenly believing that these are the plaintiff鈥檚 genuine sites or are somehow associated with/related to the plaintiff,鈥 he said.
The court also noted that the operators of these websites often conceal their identities, making legal enforcement difficult.
It held that Gameskraft had made a strong prima facie case and would suffer 鈥渋rreparable loss and injury鈥 if an injunction was not granted. The court further observed that, 鈥淏alance of convenience also lies in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants.鈥