In a recent decision taken by the Delhi High Court leading to the dismissal of the granting of Interim Injunction filed by ‘BOOKMYSHOW’. The similar prefix is used by ‘BOOKMYSPORT’ which is an online portal for booking sports events. The deceptive similarity of the registered trademark has led to the destruction of the uniqueness. BookMyShow was founded in 2015 and after a few months in the same year, bookmysport was launched with similar functionalities. The application for an interim injunction was made by Bigtree entertainment private limited, alleging that bookmysport uses similar prefix which destroys the goodwill and reputation of bookmyshow.
Why did the court refuse to grant the interim injunction?
The Delhi high court has refused to grant the interim injunction on the grounds that the prefix in question is more descriptive than being distinctive. The honourable court has also mentioned that several other domains also have had similar prefixes subsequent to the plaintiff’s website; hence the exclusivity of the term ‘bookmy’ cannot be claimed.
The Delhi high court has referred to the PP Jewellers Pvt Ltd vs PP Buildwell Pvt Ltd where it was observed that if other companies have the prefix in question as well, it only suggests that the word is descriptive than being distinctive. A similar reference was made to the Supreme Court’s decision on 1997, Reliance Industries Ltd vs Reliance Polycrete Ltd, 1997 PTC (17) 581 where it was decided that reliance company could not take the monopoly over the term reliance. Since goodwill adds value to the business, it involves reputation and connection to the firm. The name which attracts customers and brings good reputation is intangible. Hence, bookmyshow has filed an application for the sake of protecting its goodwill and reputation. Bookmysport, have allegedly used a similar name to solicit and pass of the attributes of the company.
How a trademark affects a company’s growth?
The main function that is provided by the trademark is to provide identification and origin. The consistent quality is depicted which also advertises the product. Hence, when it comes to deceptive similarity, it nullifies the functions of the trademark and as to how the customers are deprived of the familiarity. A trademark which is similar to another product deprives the customer to provide the assurance of satisfaction.
What did Court have to say regarding this?
Justice Mukta Gupta, “Bookmyshow” case laws has said 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 the injunction pending hearing of the suit is made out.”
About the author
Limiting her in few words would be a herculean task. She Likes to add some zing to the story. When not writing, she loves to watch movie. She especially enjoys being a fashionholic. Affiliated with QuickCompany which deals in Company Registration, Company Search, Trademark Registration in India, Trademark Search and Other Legal Activities.