This case involves a dispute between Nobroker Technologies Solution Pvt. Ltd. (Plaintiff) and Notbroker Property Management (Defendant). Nobroker sought a perpetual injunction against Notbroker, alleging trademark infringement and passing off of its trademarks ‘%NOBROKER’ and ‘NoBrokerHood’. In this case, Notbroker was placed ex-parte and the Court passed judgment based on the unchallenged evidence provided by Nobroker.
Facts
- Nobroker operates in the real estate and brokerage services sector under the trademark ‘%NOBROKER’ and related marks since 2007. It has substantial goodwill and reputation in this field.
- Nobroker has obtained registration over the mark ‘NoBrokerHood’ and the trademark, ‘%NOBROKER’ has been applied for registration under Class 36 (Real estate services).
- Notbroker, was found using the name ‘NOT BROKER’, which closely resembled Nobroker’s registered trademarks.
- Nobroker discovered this through social media platforms like LinkedIn, Facebook, and WhatsApp.
- Nobroker alleged that Notbroker’s use of the mark ‘NOT BROKER’ was deceptive and aimed at benefiting from NoBroker’s established goodwill.
Issues
The main issues before the Court were:
- Whether Notbroker’s use of the mark ‘NOT BROKER’ constituted trademark infringement and passing off of Nobroker’s trademarks ‘%NOBROKER’ and ‘NoBrokerHood’?
- Whether Nobroker was entitled to the reliefs claimed, including permanent injunction and removal of the domain ‘notbroker.com’?
Analysis
- Nobroker provided unchallenged evidence, including certificates of incorporation, trademark registration of ‘NoBrokerHood’, trademark applications and evidence of continuous use of the mark ‘%NOBROKER’ since 2007.
- The Court found that Notbroker’s mark ‘NOT BROKER’ was phonetically and visually similar to Nobroker’s mark, likely to cause confusion among the public. This could lead the public to believe that Notbroker’s business was associated with or endorsed by Nobroker.
- Notbroker’s use of the domain ‘notbroker.com’ was also found to be deceptively similar to Nobroker’s domains (‘NoBroker.com’ and ‘NoBroker.in’).
- As Notbroker did not appear in Court to defend the case, the Court accepted Nobroker’s unchallenged evidence, concluding that Notbroker had indeed infringed upon and passed off Nobroker’s trademarks.
Order
The Court passed the following order:
- Permanent injunction was granted restraining Notbroker from:
- Infringing and passing off Nobroker’s registered trademarks ‘%NOBROKER’ and ‘NoBrokerHood’;
- Using the domain name ‘notbroker.com’ or any other mark identical or similar to Nobroker ’s domain names.
- Notbroker was directed to remove the domain ‘notbroker.com’ from the domain registrar GoDaddy.
- The suit was decreed in favour of Nobroker with costs.
Key Takeaway
This case underscores the importance of trademark protection and demonstrates how phonetically or visually similar marks can lead to claims of infringement and passing off. It also highlights the importance of businesses protecting their trademarks early to avoid misuse and confusion in the marketplace. The judgment favours Nobroker Technologies, affirming its rights to protect its established brand and domain names.
Citation: Nobroker Technologies Solution Pvt. Ltd. vs. Notbroker Property Management, O.S.No.7617/2023 Court of the XVIII Additional City Civil Judge at Bangalore City, dated 02/09/2024 available at: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/132493941/
Authored by Kavya Sadashivan, IP Innovation, Consulting & Strategy Team, BananaIP Counsels.
Disclaimer
The case note/s in this blog post have been written by IP Attorneys at BananaIP Counsels based on their review and understanding of the Judgments. It may be noted that other IP attorneys and experts in the field may have different opinions about the cases or arrive at different conclusions therefrom. It is advisable to read the Judgments before making any decisions based on the case notes.
If you have any questions, or if you wish to speak with an IP expert/attorney, please reach us at: contact@bananaip.com or 91-80-26860414/24/34.
