Factual Background
Apnatime Tech Private Limited and its parent company, Apna Time Inc., operate "Apna Job Search," a platform launched in 2019 to connect blue and grey collar job seekers with employers in India. With over 10 million downloads and widespread recognition under the "APNA" marks, the plaintiffs discovered in 2022 that websites under the domains www.apnajobs.in and www.apnajobs.org, operated by defendants Anik Dev Nath and Santosh Kumar, mirrored their site. These sites allegedly deceived users by promising jobs for a nominal fee of Rs. 49, only to extract exorbitant sums, damaging the plaintiffs’ reputation and defrauding the public.
Procedural Background
The plaintiffs filed a suit in the Delhi High Court on November 25, 2022, seeking injunctions against copyright infringement and passing off. Summons were issued, and an ex-parte interim injunction was granted against defendant no. 1 (Anik Dev Nath). Despite service, neither defendant appeared or filed defenses. An amended memo added Santosh Kumar as defendant no. 16 after identifying him as the registrant of www.apnajobs.in. On November 14, 2024, the plaintiffs sought a summary judgment under Order XIII-A of the CPC, which went uncontested, leading to the court's decision on March 18, 2025.
Provisions of Law Referred and Their Context
The court relied on Order XIII-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), which allows summary judgments in commercial disputes when defendants have no realistic defense and no trial is warranted. Section 2(c) of the Copyright Act, 1957, was invoked to establish the plaintiffs’ copyright over their website’s layout and interface as an original artistic work. The Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018, Rule 3, deemed the plaintiffs’ documents admitted due to the defendants’ failure to respond.
Judgments Referred with Complete Citation and Context
The court cited Su-Kam Power Systems Ltd. v. Kunwer Sachdev, 2019 SCC OnLine Del 10764, emphasizing that Order XIII-A aims to expedite commercial disputes by avoiding trials when defendants lack a viable defense. The judgment clarified that “real prospect of success” distinguishes realistic from fanciful defenses, aligning with the summary judgment mechanism to ensure swift justice in clear-cut cases like this.
Reasoning of Court
The court found the plaintiffs had established extensive goodwill under the "APNA" marks through continuous use since 2019, supported by significant promotion and commercial success. The defendants’ websites were blatant copies of the plaintiffs’ platform, infringing their copyright and passing off their services. The identical marks and fraudulent operations showed mala fide intent to exploit the plaintiffs’ reputation. With no defense from the defendants despite service, the court deemed their non-response an admission of the plaintiffs’ claims, justifying a summary judgment without trial.
Decision
On March 18, 2025, the court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiffs, granting permanent injunctions against defendants no. 1 and 16 for copyright infringement and passing off, as per prayer clauses 45(a), (b), and (c) of the plaint. Other reliefs were not pressed, and the decree sheet was ordered to be drawn up, disposing of all pending applications.
Case Details
- Case Title: Apnatime Tech Private Limited and Anr. v. Anik Dev Nath and Others
- Date of Order: March 18, 2025
- Case Number: CS(COMM) 818/2022
- Neutral Citation: Not provided in the document
- Name of Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi
- Name of Hon’ble Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amit Bansal
