HC refuses to restrain use of PolicyBazaar trade marks on Google AdWords Program

The Delhi High Court has rejected a plea by Policybazaar, an aggregator of insurance coverage merchandise, searching for to restrain using key phrases an identical to its commerce marks on Google’s AdWords Program by different entities. Justice Navin Chawla, whereas coping with Policybazaar’s plea in opposition to the alleged use of its trademark by Coverfox Insurance Broking Pvt Ltd and Acko General Insurance Ltd on the Adwords Program, mentioned prima facie no case of infringement was made out.

Plaintiff Policybazaar, in its lawsuits in opposition to Coverfox and Acko, claimed that the defendant corporations have been utilizing key phrases an identical to the “Policybazaar” marks like “Policy Bazaar”, “PolicyBazaar” and “Policy Bazar” with the intent of diverting business from its web site by inflicting confusion.

The courtroom, in its interim order, mentioned the fits have been based mostly on the allegations of mere use of the registered emblems of Policybazaar as key phrases by the defendants within the AdWords Program and the mere look of the web sites of the defendants as “advertisements” or as “sponsored link” was not enough to carry that an web consumer could be confused between them.

“I am of prima facie opinion that the plaintiffs (Policybazaar and its owners) have been unable to make out a case of infringement or passing off of their trade marks by the defendants,” mentioned the courtroom in an order dated September 6.

The courtroom noticed that it was not the case of the plaintiff that there was any deception and actually, the search outcomes confirmed that the web site of the defendants appeared as a “sponsored link”.

Further, the plaintiff itself is admittedly utilizing the registered emblems of one of many defendants as key phrases and have subsequently accepted this as a good and sincere business follow, the courtroom added.

“They cannot now be heard to be complaining against the same merely because they have now realised that others may be gaining more advantage of their trade marks rather than in the reverse,” the courtroom mentioned.

In its order, the courtroom clarified that its views have been “merely prima facie in nature and should not be read as a conclusive and binding opinion”.

Stay on high of know-how and startup news that issues. Subscribe to our each day publication for the most recent and must-read tech news, delivered straight to your inbox.