Introduction:
Live Law is an online news portal, the subject area of which is to provide legal news. Over the time Live Law has built a reputation in terms of providing latest judgements, case analysis, etc. of various courts such as Supreme Court, High Courts, various others courts and tribunals. Apart from that, the portal provides updates of latest job vacancies and upcoming exams in the field of law. It also interviews and publishes the interviews of successful lawyers and academically exceptional students. At present times Live Law is one of the must go to option for all the legal students, lawyers, judges, legal academicians and so on.
The Plaintiff:
The Plaintiff claims to be the user of the mark ‘LIVE LAW’ since the year 2013. Registration of the domain name ‘www.livelaw.in’ was done on 8th March, 2013. The mark “‘LIVE LAW’ is also being used as part of the corporate name of the Plaintiff – Company which was incorporated on 13th May, 2013. The Plaintiff has obtained registration of the mark ‘LIVE LAW’, vide Application No.3379144 dated 2nd October, 2016 in Class 45 in respect of “legal service; security services for the physical protection of tangible property and individuals; personal and social security services rendered by others to meet the needs of individuals”.
Millions of users, including lawyers, judges, court staff, and other legal community stakeholders visit Live Law, one of the top legal news portals in the nation, to avail its services. The following accounts and handles are used to access it on various social media sites, including Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, Instagram, and LinkedIn.
The plaintiff has, in order to depict the popularity of their legal news portal “ LIVE LAW”, has contended that numerous court rulings across the nation have cited the judgement provided by ”LIVE LAW” and also argued that the news stories plaintiff has reported under the mark “LIVE LAW” has been used by well-known mainstream media organisations, such the BBC, L.A. Times, Al Jazeera, CNN, etc., which further establishes the legitimacy and popularity of the plaintiff.The Plaintiff offers three paid subscription plans and is stated to have a subscriber base of over 26,000 subscribers.
The plaintiff requests a permanent injunction to stop the use of the trademark “LIVE LAW” as well as other violations such as passing off, dilution, rendering of accounts, delivering up, damages, and more.
The Issue:
The complaint of the Plaintiff is that on September 2, 2022, Defendant No.1 sent an email to the Plaintiff Mr. P.V. Dinesh, from the email address “livelaw19@yahoo.com,” proposing monthly, quarterly, half-yearly, and annual plans for the website “www.livelaw.info.” Defendant No. 1 was promoting subscription plans for “LIVELAW.INFO” in the aforementioned email. The recipients of the aforementioned email were other lawyers and various law firms.
Plaintiff claims that the defendants’ website provides services that are identical to those offered by the plaintiff. Also the Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 are using the same mark or name“Live Law” in connection with the same services.
Judgment:
The records presented by the plaintiff reveal that the Plaintiff’s mark ‘LIVE LAW’ is a registered trademark since the year 2016 and is used by the plaintiff since 2013. The Plaintiff Company itself has been incorporated on 13th May, 2013. The Traffic Analytics Report presented by the plaintiff reveals that around June, 2022 to August, 2022, the worldwide traffic for the Plaintiff’s website is to the tune of 28.31 million. The Various e mails sent by the defendants also reveal that they are trying to portray themselves as “LEGAL JUDGEMENT PROVIDERS – PREMIUM SERVICES”.
The court is of the view that from the facts presented so far it is clear that live law is a popular website and the defendant has started the portal ‘LIVELAW.INFO’ with the clear intention of encashing upon the goodwill and reputation of the Plaintiff’s mark/name ‘LIVE LAW’.
Considering the use of identical mark and services being offered by the Defendant Nos.1 and 2, as also, the subscriber base and immense goodwill of the Plaintiff, the Court is of the opinion thatthe use of the mark ‘LIVELAW.INFO’ and the domain name ‘www.livelaw.info’ would be violative of the Plaintiff’s rights in the mark ‘LIVE LAW’. Therefore, the Plaintiff has made a prima facie case for the grant of an interim injunction and an irreparable injury will be caused to the plaintiff if the interim injunction is not granted. Defendant Nos.1 and 2, shall stand restrained from using the mark/name ‘LIVE LAW’, including as part of the domain name ‘www.livelaw.info’ and email addresses i.e., ‘livelaw19@yahoo.com’,.
The exclusivity of the use of the mark/name ‘LIVE LAW’ by the Plaintiff would extend only to the use of the words ‘LIVE’ and ‘LAW’ as a combination or in conjunction in the same order.Further the ISPs are directed to block access to the website of the Defendant Nos.1 and 2, being ‘www.livelaw.info’.
Live Law Media Pvt Ltd Vs Tiya Law Library & Ors (CS Comm 671/2022)
DUCTUS EDGE 