The Delhi High Court recently restrained a man in Tamil Nadu from using marks and trade names similar to ‘Google’ and ‘GPay’ in a case alleging that he had registered different entities under ‘Goocle’ name and also sought registration of trademarks akin to the marks of Google products [Google Llc vs Mr. P. Rajesh Ram & Ors].

The order was passed by Justice Sanjeev Narula in a commercial suit filed by Google LLC against P Rajesh Ram (defendant), who is alleged to be a partner in Goocle Housing LLP, Goocle Tamil News LLP, GIPAY Online Service LLP and Goocle Trade Payment LLP. 

The Court found the Ram’s trademarks “Gooogle”, “Goocle”, “Geogle” and “Gipay” “structurally and phonetically similar" to 'Google' and 'GPay' trademarks with difference of only one alphabet. 

"Prima facie, the impugned marks appear to be deceptively similar to the Plaintiff (Google)’s marks. The Defendants are utilising the impugned marks and domain names for online news, advertising, TV, banking and payment services, which also correspond to the Plaintiff’s scope of business operations, and is likely to cause confusion among the consumers,” Justice Narula said.

The order was passed in the suit filed by Google which said that it had come across the alleged infringement by defendant during a routine search.

According to the suit, the defendant had filed several applications for registration of the marks in question before the trademark registry. The applications are currently under objection. 

Google through its legal representatives had then issued a cease-and- desist notice to Ram in response to which he assured to take down the content bearing ‘Google’ trademark.

However, he allegedly refused to cease the use of the “Goocle” mark.

Google later found other infringements including several domain names using ‘Goocle’ and approached the Court for relief.

Finding a prima face case in favour of Google, the Court agreed that in case of a typographical error in entering the URL or a domain name, a potential user could be misled to the websites of the defendant.

It further opined that such use of the marks also appears to be detrimental to the distinctive character of well-known trademark Google and thus prima facie constitutes infringement of the search engine’s registered trademarks.

“In view of the above, the Court finds that the Plaintiff (Google) has made out a prima facie case in their favour and they will suffer an irreparable loss if an ex-parte ad-interim injunction is not granted to them. Balance of convenience also lies in favour of the Plaintiff and against Defendants No. 1 to 5,” said the Court.

Therefore, the Court restrained the defendants from dealing with any service under the deceptive marks and trade names.

It further ordered suspension of the domain names registered by the defendant.

The Court also directed the defendant to take down the online content including social media pages with the marks ‘Goocle’, ‘Geogle’ and ‘Gipay’.

Advocates Tanya Varma and Aishwarya represented Google

Advocates Mrinal Ojha, Debarshi Datta and Tanya Chaudhary represented one of the defendants

[Read Order]