YAHOO! INC. vs. AKASH ARORAReported at :1999 (2) AD (DELHI) 229

             1999 II AD (DELHI) 229              I.A. NO. 10115/1998.              IN SUIT NO.2469/1998.                 19.2.99

                Yahoo!, Inc.                  Vs.              Akash Arora & Anr.

              (DR. M.K. SHARMA, J.)

Appearances:Mr. Kapil Sibbal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Praveen Anand and Ms BinnyKalra, Advocates for the Plaintiff.Mr. Harish Malhotra with Mr. Ashwini Kumar Sood, Advocates for the Defend-ants.

   [From Chief Editor's desk : Now domain name or site address on   internet also in protected as intellectual property.]

   Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Or. XXXIX, rules 1 & 2  Ad-interim injunction Trade mark Passing off YAHOO Domain name/trade mark Globel internet media providing various services on internet Registered abroad Pending registration in India Domain name is like trade mark, is entitled to protection   Registration not necessary for an action for passing off Even   if it is Dictionary word, same is entitled to be protected.

   Held: Therefore, it is obvious that where the parties are engaged   in common or overlapping fields of activity, the competition   would take place. If the two contesting parties are involved in   the same line or similar line of business, there is grave and   immense possibility for confusion and deception and,   therefore, there is probability of sufferance of damage. In this   case also both the plaintiff and the defendants have common field   of activity. They are operating on the Web site and providing   information almost similar in nature. In Cardservice Internation-   al Inc. Vs. McGee; reported in 42 USPQ 2d 1850, it was held that   the domain name serve same function as the trademark and is not a   mere address or like finding number on the Internet and, there-   fore, it is entitled to equal protection as trademark. It was   further held that a domain name is more than a mere Internet   address for it also identifies the Internet site to those who   reach it, much like a person's name identifies a particular   person or more relevant to trade mark disputes, a company's name   identifies a specific company. Accordingly, the Court granted the   injunction upon consideration fo the relevant law namely, Section   32 of the Lanham Act. In the facts of the said case it was held   that Cardservice International's customers who wish to take   advantage of its Internet services, but do not know its domain   name are likely to assume that "cardservice.com" belongs to   Cardservice International. It goes on to hold that these custom-   ers would instead reach McGee and see a home page for "Card   Service" and thereby many would assume that they have reached   Cardservice International.

   The contention of the learned counsel for the defendant that the   word 'Yahoo!' is a dictionary word and, therefore, cannot be   appropriated as a domain name/trademark is also misplaced as   there are number of such words being used by various companies as   their trademarks. The said words although are dictionary words   have acquired uniqueness and distinctiveness and are associated   with the business of the concerned company and such words have   come to receive maximum degree of protection by courts as was   done also in the case of 'WHIRLPOOL'. In the said decision namely   N.R. Dongre Vs. Whirlpool Corp.; reported in 1996 PTC (16), a   Division Bench of this Court recognised the distinctiveness and   uniqueness of the word 'WHIRLPOOL' which was subsequently upheld   by the Supreme Court in its decision reported in 1996 PTC 583.   'WHIRLPOOL' is otherwise a dictionary word and was not registered   in India as a trademark. The court considering the entire gamut   of the case held that the reputation of the trademark 'WHIRLPOOL'   in respect of washing machines has travelled transborder to India   and, therefore, although the respondents are not the registered   proprietor of the 'WHIRLPOOL' in India in respect of washing   machines can maintain action of passing off against the appel-   lants in respect of the use of the same which has been registered   in their favour in respect of the same goods. In the said deci-   sion, it was also held that registration of a trademark under the   Act would be irrelevant in an action of passing off.

   The defence as raised in the present suit by the defendants is,   therefore, prima facie found to be without any merit. The counsel   for the defendants during the course of his submissions submitted   that the defendants have not been using or copying the contents   of the programmes of the plaintiff and have no objection even if   such an injunction is granted restraining the defendants from   using or copying the contents of the programmes of the plaintiff.   In my considered opinion and as discussed above, the plaintiff   has been able to make out a prima facie case for grant of ad   interim injunction in its favour and, therefore, an ad interim   injunction is passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the   defendants restraining the defendants their partners, servants   and agents from operating any business or selling, offering for   sale, advertising and/or in any manner dealing in service or   goods on the Internet or otherwise under the trademark/domain   name 'Yahooindia.com' or any other trademark/domain name which is   identical with or deceptively similar to the plaintiff trademark   'Yahoo!' till the disposal of the suit. The defendants and all   others acting on their behalf are further restrained from using   and/or copying the contents of the programmes of the plaintiff   under the domain name 'Yahoo.com'. (Para 10, 16, 17)

   Result: Application allowed.

Cases Referred:-1.  Neev Investments & Trading Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Sasia Express Couriers;   reported in 1993 PTC 184.2.  Ellora Industries Vs. Banarsi Dass & Ors.; reported in 1981 PTC 46.3.  Reddaway Vs. Banham; reported in 1696 A.C. 199. .4.  Cardservice International Inc. Vs. McGee; reported in 42 USPQ 2d 1850.5.  Marks & Spencer Vs. One-in-a-Million; reported in 1998 FSR 265.6.  Jews for Jesus Vs. Brodsky; reported in 46 USPQ 2d 1652.7.  Kaviraj Pandit Durga Dutt Sharma Vs. Navaratna Pharmaceutical Labora-   tories; reported in A.I.R. 1965 S.C.980.8.  Ruston and Hornby Ltd. Vs. Zamindara Engineering Co.; reported in 1970   S.C.1649.9.  Vishunudas Trading Vs. Vazier Sultan; reported in 1996 PTC 152 at 535.10. N.R. Dongre Vs. Whirlpool Corp.; reported in 1996 PTC (16).11. Montari Overseas Vs. Montari Industries Ltd.; reported in 1996 PTC   142,

DR. M.K. SHARMA, J:

   The present suit has been instituted by the plaintiff against thedefendants seeking for a decree of permanent injunction restraining thedefendants, their partners, servants and agents from operating any businessand/or selling, offering for sale, advertising and in any manner dealing inany  services  or goods on the Internet or  otherwise  under  thetrademark/domain name 'Yahooindia.Com' or any other mark/domain name whichis identical with or deceptively similar to the plaintiff's trademark'Yahoo!' and also for rendition of accounts and damages. The plaintiff hasalso filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC praying for an adinterim temporary injunction restraining the defendants from operating anybusiness and/or selling, offering for sale, advertising and in any mannerdealing in any services or goods on the Internet or otherwise under thetrademark/domain name 'Yahooindia.Com' or any other mark/domain name whichis identical with or deceptively similar to the plaintiff's trademark'Yahoo!'.

2.  Mr. Kapil Sibbal, counsel appearing for the plaintiff submitted thatthe plaintiff is the owner of the trademark 'Yahoo!' and domain name 'Y-ahoo.Com', which are very well-known and have acquired distinctive reputa-tion and goodwill and the defendants by adopting the name 'Yahooindia' forsimilar services have been passing off the services and goods of the de-fendants as that of the plaintiff's trademark 'Yahoo!' which is identicalto or deceptively similar to the plaintiff's trademark. It was submittedthat a domain name/trademark adopted by the plaintiff is entitled to equalprotection against passing off as in the case of a trademark. In support ofhis submission, the learned counsel heavily relied upon the ratio of thedecisions in Marks & Spencer Vs. One-in-a-Million; reported in 1998 FSR265. It was submitted that the trademarks and domain names are not mutuallyexclusive and there is an overlap between the trademarks and servicesrendered under domain names and thus by adopting a deceptively similartrademark 'Yahooindia', the defendants have verbatim copied the format,contents, lay out, colour scheme, source code of the plaintiff's priorcreated regional section on India at Yahoo.com.sg and thus passing off theservices of the defendants as that of the plaintiff. He submitted thatInternet users are familiar with the practice of companies to select domainnames that incorporate their company name, well-known trademark, and/orproduct/service name and generally attempt to locate a particular company'sWeb site by simply typing in www.(company name).com or www.(productname).com when they are unsure of the Internet address of the Company.According to him, thus, it would not be unusual for someone looking for anauthorised 'Yahoo!' site with India-specific content to type in 'Yahooin-dia.com',i.e., the defendants' domain name and thereby instead of reachingthe Internet site of the plaintiff, the said person would reach the Inter-net site of the defendants'. He further submitted that the plaintiff infact provides extensive content on India, both on its Yahoo! Asia site andat   its   main   Yahoo.com  site,   under   the   categories"Regional:Countries:India". It was submitted that the defendants being inthe same line of activity as that of the plaintiff, the defendants havetried to be 'cyber-squatters' and, thus, dishonesty is writ large as thedefendants have adopted a trademark similar to that of the plaintiff whichis 'Yahoo.com' which has acquired a distinctive name, goodwill and reputa-tion.

3.  Mr. Harish Malhotra, counsel appearing for the defendants, however,refuted the aforesaid allegations and submitted that the trademark laws inIndia relate to goods and, therefore, the provisions of Indian Trade MarksAct are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present casewhich  deals  only  with goods. It was also  submitted  that  thetrademark/domain name 'Yahoo!' of the plaintiff is not registered in Indiaand, therefore, there cannot be an action for infringement of the regis-tered mark nor could there be any action of passing off as the servicesrendered both by the plaintiff and the defendants cannot be said to begoods within the meaning of the Indian Trade Marks Act which is concernedonly with goods and not services and thus the decisions relied upon by thecounsel appearing for the plaintiff are not relevant for the purpose ofdeciding the present case. He further submitted that the word "Yahoo!" is ageneral dictionary word and is not invented and, therefore, it could nothave acquired any distinctiveness and since the defendants have been usingdisclaimer, there could be no chance of any deception and thus, no actionof passing of is maintainable against the defendants. He also submittedthat the persons using Internet and seeking to reach the Internet site areall technically educated and literate persons and, therefore, there is nopossibility of any customer reaching the Internet site of the defendantswith the intention of reaching the Internet site of the plaintiff and thus,it is not a case of unwary customer which is applicable in a case of in-fringement and passing off of the trademark. In the light of the aforesaidsubmissions, let me now consider as to whether the plaintiff has been ableto make out a prima facie case for grant of temporary injunction as soughtfor in the application.

4.  The domain name 'Yahoo.com' is registered in the plaintiff's favourwith Network Solution Inc since 18th January, 1995. The trademark 'Yahoo!'and its variance are registered or pending registration in 69 countries ofthe world. As is disclosed from the records, an application for registra-tion of the trademark of the plaintiff 'Yahoo!' is also pending in India.The plaintiff is a global Internet media rendering services under thedomain name/trade name 'Yahoo!'. The Internet is a global collection ofcomputer networks linking millions of public and private computers aroundthe world. The Internet is now recognised as an international system, acommunication medium that allows anyone from any part of the globe withaccess to the Internet to freely exchange information and share data. TheInternet provides information about various corporations, products as alsoon various subjects like educational, entertainment, commerical, governmentactivities and services. A computer or device that is attached to theInternet has an address which is known as Domain name. The same is estab-lished by using suffix 'com' and registering with Network Solutions Inc. Adomain name identifies a computer or a Sub Netork of computers in theInternet. One way to establish a presence on the Internet is by placing aweb page. The plaintiff, it is stated, was amongst the first in the fieldto have a domain name 'Yahoo' and also to start a Web directory and providesearch services. In June, 1994, the said directory was named 'Yahoo!' whichis a dictionary connotation which was adopted by the plaintiff and isproviding the said service at the Internet under the domain name/trade name'Yahoo!'.

5.  The plaintiff is admittedly providing various services includingservices on the regional section also. In view of growing popularity of'Yahoo!' of the plaintiff, it was submitted that many third parties startedimitations by using sound-alike names in order to appropriate the reputa-tion  and  goodwill acquired by the plaintiff in respect  of  thetrademark/name 'Yahoo!' in India and that the defendants is one of suchparties who in order to appropriate the reputation and goodwill acquired bythe plaintiff in respect of the said trademark 'Yahoo!' adopted the trade-mark/domain name 'Yahooindia.com' for their Internet site although theirtrading name is Netlink Internet Solutions.

6.  Let me, therefore, examine the rival contentions and defence raised bythe defendants one by one.

7.  One of the submissions was that the domain name 'Yahoo!' of the plain-tiff is not used in relations to goods, but, in relations to services andsince services are not included within the ambit of section under Sections27(2) and 29 of the Trade Mark Merchandise Act (referred to as the 'Act' inshort) and, therefore, the plaintiff cannot plead for action of passing offin relation to such services. In support of his submission, the learnedcounsel drew my attention to the provisions of Section 2(5), Sections 27,29 and Section 30 of the Act and contended that only goods are recognisedfor the purpose of preferring an action for infringement or passing off.Admittedly the present case is not for an action for infringement of aregistered trademark, but, an action for passing off. The law relating topassing off is fairly well-settled. The principle underlying the action isthat no man is entitled to carry on his business in such a way as to leadto the belief that he is carrying on the business of another man or to leadto believe that he is carrying on or has any connection with the businesscarried on by another man. It is also well-established that passing offaction is a common law remedy. There are a plethora of cases wherein it hasbeen held that the principles of common law govern actions of passing offand have been recognised by Section 27(2) and Section 106 of the Trade andMerchandise Marks Act, 1958. In this commentary, reference may be made tothe well-known treatise on the law of Trademarks and passing off, of P.Narayanan. In paragraph 25.102 of the fourth edition of the said treatise,it is stated thus:-

   "The general principles of the law applicable to cases where a   person uses a name or intends to use a name which is likely to   deceive and divert the business of the plaintiff to the defendant   or cause confusion between the two businesses are analogous to   the principles which are applicable to ordinary cases of passing   off relating to sale of goods."

8.  Reference may be made to the decision of this Court in Montari Over-seas Vs. Montari Industries Ltd.; reported in 1996 PTC 142, wherein it wasfound that the defendant adopted a trade name that was identical to that ofthe plaintiff and the court while injuncting the defendant held thus:-

   "When a defendant does business under a name which is sufficient-   ly close to the name under which the plaintiff is trading and   that name has acquired a reputation and the public at large is   likely to be misled that the defendant's business is the business   of the plaintiff, or is a branch or department of the plaintiff,   the defendant is liable for an action in passing off."

   Similarly, there are other cases wherein the services rendered by   a person have been included within the scope of passing off. In   this connection, reference may be made to the decisions in Neev   Investments & Trading Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Sasia Express Couriers;   reported in 1993 PTC 184. In Ellora Industries Vs. Banarsi Dass &   Ors.; reported in 1981 PTC 46, it was held that the plaintiffs   and the defendants are direct competitors and 'Ellora' as a   business name suggests association with the plaintiffs' regis-   tered trade mark and, it is suggestive of the fact that the goods   come from the same source and, therefore, is a misrepresentation   for business purposes as to the origin of goods which the defend-   ants manufacture in the course of their business. In paragraph 12   of the said judgment, it was held thus:

   PASSING OFF:

   "12. The purpose of this tort is to protect commerical goodwill   to ensure that peoples' business reputations are not exploited.   Since business "goodwill is an asset, and therefore species of   property the law protects it against encroachment as such. The   tort is based on economic policy, the need to encourage enter-   prise and to ensure commercial stability. It secures a reasonable   area of monopoly to traders. It is thus complementary to trade   mark law which is founded upon statute rather than common law.   But there is a difference between statute law relating to trade   marks and the passing off action; for, while registration of   relevant mark itself gives title to the registered owner, the   onus in a passing off action lies upon the plaintiff to establish   the existence of the business reputation which he seeks to pro-   tect. The asset protected is the reputation the plaintiffs'   business has in the relevant mark. This is a complex thing. It is   manifested in the various indica which lead the client or custom-   er to associate the business with the plaintiff; such as the name   of the business, whether real or adopted, the mark, design, make   up or colour of the plaintiffs goods, the distinctive character-   istics of services he supplies or the nature of his special   processes. And it is around encroachments upon such indica that   passing off actions arise. What is protected is an economic   asset:" (emphasis is mine)

9.  Lord Halsbury defined the tort of passing off in Reddaway Vs. Banham;reported in 1696 A.C. 199. In paragraph 31 of the aforesaid decision ofthis Court in Ellora Industries (supra) it was said that it is not alwaysnecessary that there must be in existence goods of that other man withwhich the defendant seeks to confuse his own. Reference was also made tothe observation of Lord Greene M.R., who observed that:-

   "Passing off may occur in cases where the plaintiffs do not in   fact deal with the offending goods".

10. Therefore, it is obvious that where the parties are engaged in commonor overlapping fields of activity, the competition would take place. If thetwo contesting parties are involved in the same line or similar line ofbusiness, there is grave and immense possibility for confusion and decep-tion and, therefore, there is probability of sufferance of damage. In thiscase also both the plaintiff and the defendants have common field of activ-ity. They are operating on the Web site and providing information almostsimilar in nature. In Cardservice International Inc. Vs. McGee; reported in42 USPQ 2d 1850, it was held that the domain name serve same function asthe trademark and is not a mere address or like finding number on theInternet and, therefore, it is entitled to equal protection as trademark.It was further held that a domain name is more than a mere Internet addressfor it also identifies the Internet site to those who reach it, much like aperson's name identifies a particular person or more relevant to trade markdisputes, a company's name identifies a specific company. Accordingly, theCourt granted the injunction upon consideration fo the relevant law namely,Section 32 of the Lanham Act. In the facts of the said case it was heldthat Cardservice International's customers who wish to take advantage ofits Internet services, but do not know its domain name are likely to assumethat "cardservice.com" belongs to Cardservice International. It goes on tohold that these customers would instead reach McGee and see a home page for"Card Service" and thereby many would assume that they have reached Card-service International.

11. In Marks & Spencer Vs. One-in-a-Million; reported in 1998 FSR 265, itwas held that any person who deliberately registers a domain name on ac-count of its similarity to the name, brand name or trademark of an uncon-nected commercial organisation must expect to find himself on the receivingend of an injunction to restrain the threat of passing off, and the injunc-tion will be in terms which will make the name commercially useless to thedealer. It was held in the said decision that the name 'marksandspencer'could not have been chosen for any other reason than that it was associatedwith the well-known retailing group. The decision further goes on to saythat where the value of a name consists solely in its resemblance to thename or trade mark of another enterprise, the Court will normally assumethat the public is likely to be deceived, for why else would the defendantschoose it? It was also said that someone seeking or coming upon a websitecalled http:// marksandspencer.co.uk would naturally assume that it wasthat of the plaintiffs. Thus, it is seen that although the word 'services'may not find place in the expression used in Sections 27 and 29 of theTrade and Merchandise Marks Act, services rendered have come to be recog-nised for an action of passing off. Thus law of passing off is an actionunder the common law which also is given a statutory recognition in theTrade Mark Act. Thus in the context and light of the aforesaid decisionsand the development in the concept of law of passing off, it is too late inthe day to submit that passing off action cannot be maintained as againstservices as it could be maintained for goods.

12. The services of the plaintiff under the trademark/domain name 'Yahoo!'have been widely publicised and written about globally. In an Internetservice, a particular Internet site could be reached by anyone anywhere inthe world who proposes to visit the said Internet site. With the advance-ment and progress in technology, services rendered in the Internet has alsocome to be recognised and accepted and are being given protection so as toprotect such provider of service from passing off the services rendered byothers as that of the plaintiff. As a matter of fact in a matter whereservices rendered through the domain name in the Internet, a very alertvigil is necessary and a strict view is to be taken for its easy access andreach by anyone from any corner of the globe. There can be no two opinionsthat the two marks/domain names 'Yahoo!' of the plaintiff and 'Yahooindia'of the defendant are almost similar except for use of the suffix 'India' inthe latter. The degree of the similarity of the marks usually is vitallyimportant and significant in an action for passing off for in such a casethere is every possibility and likelihood of confusion and deception beingcaused. When both the domain names are considered, it is crystal clear thatthe two names being almost identical or similar in nature, there is everypossibility of an Internet user being confused and deceived in believingthat both the domain names belong to one common source and connection,although the two belong to two different concerns.

13. Counsel for the defendant also argued that the Internet users are so-phisticated users and only literate people who are able to ascertain canapproach the actual Internet site that they intend to visit. The saidsubmission does not appear to have force for even if an individual is asophisticated user of the Internet, he may be an unsophisticated consumerof information and such a person may find his/her way to the defendantInternet site which provides almost similar type of information as that ofthe plaintiff and thereby confusion could be created in the mind of thesaid person who intends to visit the Internet site of the plaintiff, but,in fact reaches the Internet site of the defendant.

14. It is also submitted that the defendant has been issuing a disclaimer.The said disclaimer being used by the defendants cannot eliminate theproblem , for it was observed in the case of Jews for Jesus Vs. Brodsky;reported in 46 USPQ 2d 1652 that due to the nature of Internet use,defendant's appropriation of plaintiff's mark as a domain name and homepage address cannot adequately be remedied by a disclaimer. It was alsoobserved that considering the vastness of the Internet and its relativelyrecent availability to the general public, many Internet users are notsophisticated enough to distinguish between the subtle difference in thedomain names of the parties. The ratio and principle laid down in theaforesaid decision equally apply to the facts of the present case with fullforce.

15. Counsel for the defendants also submitted that there is sufficientadded matter, namely, addition of the word 'India" to distinguish itsdomain name from that of the plaintiff and in support of his submission,the learned counsel relied upon the decision in Kaviraj Pandit Durga DuttSharma Vs. Navaratna Pharmaceutical Laboratories; reported in A.I.R. 1965S.C.980. In Ruston and Hornby Ltd. Vs. Zamindara Engineering Co.; reportedin 1970 S.C.1649, it was held that if there be close resemblance betweenthe two marks and they are deceptively similar to each other, the word'India' added to one mark is of no consequence. In that case the two markswere 'Ruston' and 'Ruston India'. Besides the plaintiff itself is usingregional names after Yahoo! like Yahoo.CA (for Canada) and Yahoo.FR (forFrance). Thus, there is every possibility of the Internet users to believethat Yahooindia is another one in the series of Yahoo marks/names andthereby there is every possibility of confusion being created and therebypreventing these users from reaching the Internet site of the plaintiff.The decision in Vishunudas Trading Vs. Vazier Sultan; reported in 1996 PTC152 at 535 relied upon by the defendant deals with the rectification ofregistration of a trademark and thus may not be an appropriate case for thepresent case. The decisions relied upon by the counsel for the defendantare not applicable to the facts of the present case and have no applicationin the facts and circumstances of the present case as the services offeredin the present case by the plaintiff and the defendant are identical sinceboth of them provide Internet programs and on line information to usersregarding various categories of applications like arts, humanities, employ-ment, entertainment, etc.

16. The contention of the learned counsel for the defendant that the word'Yahoo!' is a dictionary word and, therefore, cannot be appropriated as adomain name/trademark is also misplaced as there are number of such wordsbeing used by various companies as their trademarks. The said words al-though are dictionary words have acquired uniqueness and distinctivenessand are associated with the business of the concerned company and suchwords have come to receive maximum degree of protection by courts as wasdone also in the case of 'WHIRLPOOL'. In the said decision namely N.R.Dongre Vs. Whirlpool Corp.; reported in 1996 PTC (16), a Division Bench ofthis Court recognised the distinctiveness and uniqueness of the word 'WHIR-LPOOL' which was subsequently upheld by the Supreme Court in its decisionreported in 1996 PTC 583. 'WHIRLPOOL' is otherwise a dictionary word andwas not registered in India as a trademark. The court considering theentire gamut of the case held that the reputation of the trademark 'WHIR-LPOOL' in respect of washing machines has travelled transborder to Indiaand, therefore, although the respondents are not the registered proprietorof the 'WHIRLPOOL' in India in respect of washing machines can maintainaction of passing off against the appellants in respect of the use of thesame which has been registered in their favour in respect of the samegoods. In the said decision, it was also held that registration of a trade-mark under the Act would be irrelevant in an action of passing off.

17. The defence as raised in the present suit by the defendants is, there-fore, prima facie found to be without any merit. The counsel for the de-fendants during the course of his submissions submitted that the defendantshave not been using or copying the contents of the programmes of the plain-tiff and have no objection even if such an injunction is granted restrain-ing the defendants from using or copying the contents of the programmes ofthe plaintiff. In my considered opinion and as discussed above, the plain-tiff has been able to make out a prima facie case for grant of ad interiminjunction in its favour and, therefore, an ad interim injunction is passedin favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants restraining thedefendants their partners, servants and agents from operating any businessor selling, offering for sale, advertising and/or in any manner dealing inservice or goods on the Internet or otherwise under the trademark/domainname 'Yahooindia.com' or any other trademark/domain name which is identicalwith or deceptively similar to the plaintiff trademark 'Yahoo!' till thedisposal of the suit. The defendants and all others acting on their behalfare further restrained from using and/or copying the contents of the pro-grammes of the plaintiff under the domain name 'Yahoo.com'.

18. In terms of the aforesaid order, the application filed by the plain-tiff seeking for injunction stands disposed of. It is, however, made clearthat all opinions and views expressed in this order are my tentative andprima facie view and shall not be treated as the final opinion on the meritof the case.