Read Time: 05 minutes

Synopsis

The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Google, in response to the striking similarities between the contested trademarks and Google's own, both structurally and phonetically. 

The bench of Justice Sanjeev Narula held, “The impugned trademarks 'GOOOGLE', 'GOOCLE', 'GEOGLE' and 'GIPAY' are structurally and phonetically similar to the Plaintiff’s 'GOOGLE' and 'GPAY' trademarks, with the only difference being of replacement/ addition of one alphabet”. 

Advocate Tanya Verma, representing the plaintiff, presented facts and contentions regarding the trademarks "GOOGLE" and "GPay", outlining their history, registrations, and the alleged infringement by P. Rajesh Ram (Defendant). The plaintiff contended that defendant's use of similar terms constituted trademark infringement, particularly in the context of domain names, where it amounted to typo-squatting and creating confusion among consumers.

The court noted that per the comparison chart, contested trademarks 'GOOOGLE', 'GOOCLE', 'GEOGLE', and 'GIPAY' closely resembled the plaintiff's trademarks 'GOOGLE' and 'GPAY', differing only by the replacement or addition of a single letter. This structural and phonetic similarity suggested that the contested marks were deceptively similar to the plaintiff's marks. 

Additionally, the bench observed that the defendants were using these marks and domain names for services overlapping with the plaintiff's business activities, such as online news, advertising, TV, banking, and payment services, which caused more confusion. Moreover, the potential for typographical errors in entering URLs could lead users to the defendants' websites, damaging the plaintiff's brand. 

Court held that such unauthorized use of the contested marks also appeared to dilute the distinctiveness of the plaintiff's well-known trademark "GOOGLE". Consequently, court concluded that the plaintiff established a prima facie case of trademark infringement and was likely to suffer irreparable harm without interim relief. 

The court therefore, passed the following directions: 

1. Defendants and anyone acting on their behalf, are prohibited from engaging in any activities involving the trademarks "GOOGLE," "GEOGLE," "GOOCLE," "GIPAY," or any other trademarks deceptively similar to the Plaintiff's Google and GPay trademarks until the next hearing. 
2. They are also restrained from using trade names similar to the Plaintiff's trademarks. Defendants are directed to remove online content, including social media pages, bearing the marks "GOOCLE," "GEOGLE," and "GIPAY." 

Court listed the matter on August 16, 2024 for further consideration. 

Case Title: Google LLC v Mr. P. Rajesh Ram & Ors