FACTUAL BACKGROUND:
The case involves a dispute between CreativeLand Advertising Pvt. Ltd. and Winzo Games Pvt. Ltd. over intellectual property rights and confidentiality obligations related to a brand campaign. CreativeLand, a creative agency, claims that it developed a tagline, "Jeeto Har DinZo," exclusively for Winzo Games under a Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA). The agency argues that Winzo unlawfully used the tagline without proper authorization and sought legal intervention to prevent its use. Winzo maintains that the tagline was a derivative of its internal branding strategy and was never exclusively created by CreativeLand.
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND:
CreativeLand filed a petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking an injunction to restrain Winzo from using the tagline. The Delhi High Court directed the matter to arbitration, where the Sole Arbitrator ruled against granting an injunction. The Arbitrator held that no formal agreement for the tagline's use existed and that damages could adequately compensate CreativeLand if its claim was proven. CreativeLand challenged this ruling under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act before the High Court.
PROVISIONS OF LAW REFERRED AND THEIR CONTEXT:
The case primarily revolves around the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, specifically:
Section 9: Provides for interim relief before arbitration proceedings.
Section 17: Empowers the arbitral tribunal to grant interim measures.
Section 37: Governs appeals against orders under Sections 9 and 17.
The NDA between the parties also played a crucial role, particularly clauses defining confidentiality and restrictions on unauthorized use of shared information.
JUDGMENTS REFERRED WITH CITATION AND CONTEXT:
Indian Oil Corporation v. Amritsar Gas Services (1991 SCC OnLine SC 513): Establishing that in determinable contracts, damages are the appropriate remedy rather than injunctions.
World Window Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. Central Warehousing Corporation (2021 SCC OnLine Del 5099): Highlighting the limited scope of interference in arbitral orders under Section 37.
These judgments reinforced that injunctive relief should be granted only in exceptional cases where monetary compensation would be inadequate.
REASONING OF THE COURT:
The High Court upheld the Arbitrator’s ruling, stating that CreativeLand failed to prove exclusive ownership of the tagline. The court noted that Winzo had contributed to the creative process and that the tagline contained "WinZo," its registered trademark. It further held that the NDA did not explicitly classify the tagline as confidential information. Given the lack of a formal engagement and agreed pricing, the court ruled that damages, rather than an injunction, were the appropriate remedy. The court emphasized that Section 37 limits interference in arbitral decisions unless they are perverse or against public policy.
DECISION:
The High Court dismissed CreativeLand’s appeal, affirming that the Arbitrator’s decision was reasonable. However, as a protective measure, Winzo was directed to furnish a bank guarantee of ₹50 lakhs until the arbitration was resolved. CreativeLand was also given the option to challenge Winzo’s trademark registration of the tagline before the appropriate authority.
CASE DETAILS:
Case Title: Creative Land Advertising Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Winzo Games Pvt. Ltd.
Date of Order: March 18, 2025
Case Number: ARB. A. (COMM.) 15/2025 & 17/2025
Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:1811
Court Name: High Court of Delhi
Hon'ble Judge: Justice Subramonium Prasad
