IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION SUIT NO. 5625 OF 1998 Rediff.Com India Ltd., formerly known as Rediff Communications Ltd. ..Plaintiffs Vs. Virtual Communications Pvt Ltd. ..Defendants Ms. Jyoti Ghag with Mr. Sameer Khedekar i/b Thakore Jariwala & Associates for the Plaintiffs None for the Defendants CORAM: DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. DATE: 11th AUGUST, 2009 P.C. : 1. The suit has been instituted for infringement and passing off. The Plaintiffs are in the business of providing services which are offered through the use of the Internet and mobile phone services relating to Internet portals for nearly a decade. The Plaintiffs are a part of Rediffusion Dentsu Young and Rubicam Advertising Ltd. The words REDIFF and REDIFFUSION are associated with the Plaintiffs and their group companies. The Plaintiffs are an entity registered in India, and use a domain name for its core business which consists of owning and operating Internet portals. The Plaintiffs website “rediff.com” is associated with the Plaintiffs and is used to identify the services provided by the Plaintiffs all over the world. The Plaintiffs are a premier worldwide on line provider of news, information, communication, entertainment and shopping services. The Plaintiffs were incorporated in India on 09.01.1996. The Plaintiffs’ portal has over 40 million registered users as on 31.12.2005. The mark “REDIFF” is synonymous with the Plaintiffs. In connection with their services, the Plaintiffs use various trade marks containing the word “REDIFF” as a permanent and essential feature. The Plaintiffs are the owners and proprietors of the Trade Mark “REDIFF.COM”. Copies of the balance sheet of the Plaintiffs have been placed on the record. The Plaintiffs have been granted registration of the mark “www.rediff.com” in Class-16 and a certificate of registration dated 13.10.1998 has been issued. The Plaintiffs similarly have a Certificate of Registration from the United States Patent and Trade Mark Office. The Plaintiffs claim to have acquired a business reputation by the use of the mark “REDIFF” . The Plaintiffs have obtained registration of various domain names with the word “REDIFF”. 2. Defendants No.1 & 2 applied for and obtained registration of the domain name “REDIFF.NET” for the first time on 18.11.1998. The Plaintiffs have accessed the e-mail services of the Defendants and the web page, which is available on the Internet. Copies have been placed on the record. By a letter dated 09.12.1998, the Plaintiffs’ Advocates called upon the Defendants to comply with certain requisitions. In a reply dated 11.12.1998, the Defendants’ Advocates stated that the Defendants have not registered the domain name “REDIFF.NET”. The case of the Plaintiffs is that the Defendants are infringing the Trade Mark of the Plaintiffs, “REDIFF”. Besides, it has been stated that the use of the word “REDIFF” by the Defendants is an attempt to pass off the name of the Plaintiffs as that of the Defendants and is liable to cause deception in the minds of the Public. 3. The Defendants have been served with the Writ of Summons by substituted service. No Written Statement has been filed. In these circumstances, the averments contained in the Plaint have not been controverted. The Plaintiffs have relied upon an Affidavit of evidence of their Assistant Managing Editor and on a compilation of the original documents which are taken on record. In absence of any contest the claim of the Plaintiffs has not been controverted. The suit shall accordingly stand decreed in terms of prayer clause (a) to (c) and (m). Prayer Clauses (d), (e) & (f) are not pressed. There shall be a refund of court fees, if any, as per rules. (Dr. D.Y.Chandrachud, J.)