Introduction:

In the case titled Gameskraft Technologies Private Limited and Another versus John Doe and Others, cited as 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 719, the Delhi High Court issued a significant order on trademark and copyright infringement within India’s online gaming ecosystem. The matter came before Justice Amit Bansal, who passed a detailed interim order in favour of Gameskraft Technologies, the proprietor of leading online gaming platforms like Rummy Culture, Gamezy, Playship, and others. Gameskraft alleged that numerous rogue websites, mobile apps, and domain entities were unlawfully using its registered trademarks—“Playship”, “Plego”, “Ludo Select”, “Pocket 52”, “Rummy”, “Rummy Culture”, “Gameskraft” and “Culture of Champions”—to mislead unsuspecting Indian consumers into downloading unauthorized applications. These applications allegedly used Gameskraft’s brand identity and website content, thereby entrapping users into transferring money into dubious apps unrelated to Gameskraft, resulting in financial harm. Gameskraft further contended that these infringing platforms even included domain names deceptively similar to their well-known marks and websites containing content identical to or derived from Gameskraft’s unique copyrighted materials, such as website text, game rules, and visual layouts hosted at http://www.rummyculture.com, http://www.gamezy.com, http://www.playship.com, http://www.rummyprime.com, and http://www.pocket52.com.

Arguments:

The plaintiffs asserted that the deliberate replication of Gameskraft’s trademarks and copyrighted content not only diluted the distinctiveness of its brands but also threatened its goodwill, built painstakingly over years of lawful operation. Counsel for the plaintiffs, led by Senior Advocate Mr. Sandeep Sethi along with Mr. Arun Srikumar, Mr. Abhyudaya Shishodia, and Mr. Ritwik Gupta, argued that the actions of the defendant entities were intended solely to deceive Indian gamers, who were induced into believing that the infringing websites and apps were authorized by or associated with Gameskraft. They highlighted how these rogue sites offered links to download questionable apps, which then redirected users’ funds outside Gameskraft’s secure systems, posing grave financial risks to consumers who thought they were engaging with a trusted gaming platform. Gameskraft’s counsel emphasized the urgency of interim relief, warning that each day of delay allowed these defendants to continue fleecing innocent users and jeopardizing the reputation of the legitimate gaming brand.

On the other side, the limited appearance recorded for some defendants by Advocate Mr. Gaurav Barathi focused on issues of identification and maintainability. The counsel contended that the plaintiffs had failed to show concrete evidence linking specific domain registrants or social media account holders to the infringing acts, arguing that many of the defendants were merely John Doe parties with no ascertainable identities. He submitted that blanket injunctions against unidentified or improperly identified parties could unfairly affect third parties or legitimate operators unintentionally caught up in the wide net of the suit. Furthermore, defense counsel insisted that Gameskraft’s intellectual property rights could not extend to generic words like “Rummy” or “Rummy Culture” in a manner that would exclude all others in the field of online card games, and cautioned against overbroad orders stifling fair competition or legitimate businesses that might offer similar but independently developed gaming products.

Judgement:

In its considered judgment, the Court rejected these defenses, observing that the materials placed on record by Gameskraft—such as screenshots of the infringing websites, domain details, and sample downloads—clearly established the deliberate misuse of Gameskraft’s trademarks and copyrighted content. Justice Amit Bansal noted that the defendants’ websites and apps blatantly used the “Rummy Culture” mark within domain names and website content to mislead users by invoking Gameskraft’s credibility. The Court found that the defendants’ primary motive was to defraud consumers, luring them into downloading unauthorized applications under the guise of Gameskraft’s well-known brands, thereby diverting revenue streams and causing both reputational and financial injury to the plaintiffs and unsuspecting members of the public. Justice Bansal cited settled principles of trademark law, holding that even generic or descriptive terms can acquire secondary meaning through extensive and exclusive use, entitling the plaintiffs to statutory protection once such terms have become synonymous with their services. The Court also rejected the argument that identifying John Doe defendants rendered the suit defective, reasoning that courts have long recognized the validity of actions against unknown parties in cases involving internet-based infringements, where perpetrators often hide behind fake identities or proxy servers. Consequently, the Court granted an interim injunction restraining defendants from using Gameskraft’s trademarks—“Playship”, “Plego”, “Ludo Select”, “Pocket 52”, “Rummy”, “Rummy Culture”, “Gameskraft” and “Culture of Champions”—or any deceptively similar variants. It further restrained the defendants from reproducing or using the unique copyrighted website and application content belonging to Gameskraft on websites http://www.rummyculture.com, http://www.gamezy.com, http://www.playship.com, http://www.rummyprime.com, and http://www.pocket52.com, or on the associated apps “Rummy Culture”, “Gamezy Poker”, “Playship Rummy”, “Rummy Prime” and “Pocket52”. The Court also directed domain registrars and hosting platforms to suspend or block the infringing domains and take down pages giving links for downloading the infringing apps. Social media companies, including YouTube, Instagram, X (formerly Twitter), and others, were ordered to deactivate accounts operating under the name “Rummy Venture” or any similar names connected to the infringing activities. Justice Bansal specifically emphasized that the continued operation of such rogue websites posed a major financial risk to the public, as users were tricked into paying into unauthorized apps with no connection to Gameskraft, resulting in unjust enrichment of the rogue operators and serious consumer harm. By ensuring the takedown of infringing content and rogue domains, the Court sought to protect the interests of consumers and prevent the dilution of Gameskraft’s well-established trademarks. The Court fixed the next date of hearing for September 26, allowing further time for investigation and compliance with its directions.