The rapid growth of online gaming platforms has intensified concerns surrounding the misuse of well-known brands and copyrighted digital assets by rogue operators seeking to capitalise on consumer trust. With the increasing prevalence of mobile applications distributed through unofficial channels and promoted via social media, courts are increasingly called upon to protect intellectual property rights against new forms of digital infringement. The present case shows the willingness of Indian courts to grant urgent relief when infringing platforms attempt to pass themselves off as established brands by copying trademarks, domain names, promotional materials, and user interfaces.
In Sporta Technologies Private Limited vs Come Sports & Ors. [CS(COMM) 181/2026], the Delhi High Court considered an ex parte ad-interim injunction application filed by Sporta Technologies Private Limited, the owner of the well-known DREAM11 and DREAM SPORTS trademarks. The dispute concerned the operation of rogue fantasy gaming platforms using the marks “Come x Dream11”, “Come” and “Come Sports”, which allegedly copied the plaintiff’s trademarks, mobile application interface, promotional content and overall branding to mislead consumers into believing that the defendants’ services were associated with or endorsed by the plaintiff.
The plaintiff submitted that it operated the DREAM11 fantasy sports platform since 2012 and has built substantial goodwill and reputation through the continuous use of its trademarks. It stated that the platform presently has over 200 million registered users and enjoys widespread recognition in India and several overseas jurisdictions. The plaintiff further asserted that it owns numerous registrations for DREAM11 and other “Dream”/”Dream11-formative trademarks and has invested significant resources over the years in advertising, marketing and brand promotion.
According to the plaintiff, it discovered in December 2025 that Defendant No. 1 and other unidentified or anonymous rogue entities were extensively advertising -paid real-money gaming applications under the impugned marks on Facebook, Instagram, and several newly created domain names. The applications were made available for download through APK files hosted on multiple websites. Following complaints received from users in January and February 2026, the plaintiff conducted an investigation and discovered that Defendant No. 1 was using several domain names incorporating or referring to the plaintiff’s trademarks while offering fantasy gaming services under the names “Come”, “Come Sports” and “Come x Dream11”.
The plaintiff further alleged that the Defendant No. 1 had not merely adopted identical or deceptively similar marks but had also copied the DREAM11 application’s user interface, including its layout, graphics, colour scheme, icons, structure, and overall look and feel. In addition, Defendant No. 1 was alleged to have reproduced the plaintiff’s promotional videos and branding elements, used unauthorised footage from the plaintiff’s older advertisements and projected itself as a “comeback version” of DREAM11, thereby creating the false impression that the applications originated from or were affiliated with the plaintiff. The plaintiff contended that these acts amounted to trademark infringement, passing off, and copyright infringement, and that they also deceived unsuspecting consumers. The plaintiff also submitted that Defendant No. 1 was offering real-money fantasy gaming, casino and rummy mobile applications in India.
After considering the pleadings and documents placed on record, the Court observed that the plaintiff had established a prima facie case for the grant of an ex parte-ad interim injunction. The Court held that the balance of convenience was in favour of the plaintiff and that irreparable harm would be caused if immediate protection was not granted.
The Court noted that the plaintiff was the registered proprietor of the DREAM11 and DREAM SPORTS trademarks and owned copyright in the artistic elements of its mobile application and user interface. While comparing the parties’ applications, promotional materials, and branding, the Court prima facie found that Defendant No. 1 had deliberately adopted the plaintiff’s trademarks and copied its copyrighted material with the intention of exploiting the goodwill and reputation associated with the DREAM11 brand. The Court further observed that Defendant No. 1’s conduct was likely to deceive consumers into believing that the impugned services originated from, related to or were endorsed the plaintiff.
Accordingly, till the next date of hearing, the Court restrained Defendant No. 1 and any other person acting on its behalffrom using the plaintiff’s registered trademarks, including DREAM11, DREAM SPORTS or any identical or deceptively similar marks in any manner, including as part of domain names, websites, mobile applications, social media or in-app content, advertisements and promotional communications. The Court also restrained Defendant No. 1from reproducing, adapting, storing, copying or communicating to the public the plaintiff’s copyright-protected works, including its promotional advertisements and mobile application/platform user interface.
Recognising the continuing nature of the online infringement, the Court further directed the Department of Telecommunications (DoT) and the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) to notify internet service providers to block access to the identified rogue websites. The plaintiff was also granted liberty to notify ISPs, domain name registrars, Google, Meta and the concerned authorities regarding any additional rogue websites found to be violating its intellectual property rights so that appropriate blocking action could be initiated. The plaintiff was also allowed to intimate DoT and MeitY of any further violation of its IP rights by other rogue websites for initiating relevant action.
The order reflects the Delhi High Court’s proactive approach towards protecting intellectual property rights in the digital ecosystem. It demonstrates that courts may grant relief where rogue online platforms attempt to exploit the goodwill of established brands through deceptive domain names, copied user interfaces and misleading promotional material. Equally significant is the Court’s recognition that effective enforcement against digital infringement requires not only injunctive relief against infringers but also prompt directions for blocking rogue websites and enabling rights holders to seek action against future infringing platforms. The decision is therefore relevant for IP rights holders seeking urgent relief for combating online trademark infringement, passing off and copyright violations in India’s rapidly evolving digital economy.
Authors: Manisha Singh and Kratika Patel