The Delhi High Court recently dismissed a plea by CreativeLand Advertising Private Limited which had sought to restrain Winzo from using ‘Jeeto Har DinZo’ as a tagline in advertisement campaigns..The case involved an interplay of arbitration, contracts and trademark infringement. CreativeLand Advertising, a creative agency specializing in brand campaigns, had claimed that Winzo had used intellectually property in the tagline without authorisation.Justice Subramonium Prasad refused to restrain Winzo from using the tagline, but said that CreativeLand Advertising was free to contest the registration of this tagline with the trademark authorities. The Court however upheld arbitrator's direction asking Winzo to furnish a bank guarantee of ₹ 50 lakhs to protect CreativeLand's rights.“The present appeal is dismissed, along with the pending applications, if any. It is open for the Appellant to contest the registration of the tagline 'Jeeto Har DinZo' by filing an appropriate application before the trademark authorities," the March 18 ruling said. .The dispute arose from a commercial engagement between WinZo Games, an online gaming platform, and CreativeLand Advertising, a creative agency specializing in brand campaigns. CreativeLand alleged that WinZo had used its intellectual property, including the tagline 'Jeeto Har DinZo' without authorization, breaching a Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA) signed between the parties in November 2024.According to CreativeLand, the tagline was developed exclusively for WinZo’s brand campaign during a series of pitch presentations between December 2024 and January 2025. However, WinZo terminated discussions in February 2025, informing CreativeLand that it would proceed with a different creative team. WinZo contended that the tagline was derived from its internal brand strategy. Winzo also offered CreativeLand ₹10 lakhs as compensation for its use..CreativeLand filed a petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking interim relief to restrain WinZo from using the tagline. The Court eventually constituted an arbitral tribunal comprising a sole arbitrator and referred the dispute to arbitration.The arbitrator refused to grant an injunction, stating that there was no formal agreement between the parties beyond the NDA. The arbitrator noted that the tagline’s creation was a matter of dispute and that damages would be an adequate remedy if CreativeLand’s claims were proven. WinZo was directed to furnish a bank guarantee of ₹50 lakhs as a protective measure..CreativeLand filed a plea challenging this interim order. It argued that the tagline and other creative materials were shared under the NDA, which prohibited WinZo from using or disclosing the information without authorisation. The agency claimed that the tagline was its original creation and formed the core of its pitch decks. It sought an injunction to prevent WinZo from using the tagline, asserting that monetary compensation would not suffice for the irreparable harm caused.CreativeLand emphasised that the NDA explicitly protected its confidential information, including the tagline, and that WinZo’s actions constituted a breach of contractual obligations..WinZo argued that the tagline was not the sole creation of CreativeLand but was based on its internal brand strategy and industry insights. The company claimed that the phrase 'Jeeto Har Din' (Win Every Day) was a common vernacular expression in the gaming industry.WinZo highlighted that there was no formal agreement beyond the NDA, which was solely for evaluating potential business opportunities. It maintained that the tagline was not separately priced or assigned to CreativeLand. The company offered ₹10 lakhs as compensation for the tagline, asserting that the dispute was essentially a monetary matter rather than a case of intellectual property infringement..In its March 18 ruling, the Court found that the NDA did not explicitly grant ownership of the tagline to CreativeLand. Clause 8 of the NDA allowed either party to develop products or concepts independently, provided they did not breach confidentiality obligations.“This Court is of the opinion that the view taken by the learned Arbitrator while adjudicating an application under Section 17 is not so erroneous so as to shock the conscious of the Court. The conclusion of the Arbitrator that the reading of Clauses 3 & 8 of the NDA gives an indication that in the event of such breach, the Disclosing Party will also be entitled to receive an award of actual and exemplary damages does not warrant any interference,” the judgment said. .The Court added that interim relief, such as an injunction, is discretionary and should be granted only in cases of irreparable harm. In this case, the arbitrator’s decision to deny an injunction was found to be reasonable.The Court also found that the arbitrator’s conclusions were plausible and did not warrant interference under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.Justice Prasad, however, agreed that damages would be an adequate remedy, given the nature of the dispute and the absence of a formal agreement beyond the NDA..CreativeLand was represented by Senior Advocate Chander M Lall with Advocates Nishad Nadkarni, Nirupam Lodha, Khushboo Jhunjhunwala, Kshitij Parashar, Gautam Wadhwa and Annanya Mehan..Winzo was represented by Senior Advocate Abhishek Malhotra with Advocates Srishti Gupta, Kumarjeet Ray and Anukriti Trivedi..[Read Judgment]
