The Delhi High Court on February 24, 2026 granted an ex parte ad interim injunction in favour of Sporta Technologies Private Limited, the operator of the Dream11 fantasy sports platform. The Court restrained a rogue operator from using marks deceptively similar to “Dream11” and “Dream Sports” in connection with online gaming apps and websites.
Justice Jyoti Singh passed the order in Sporta Technologies Private Limited v. Come Sports & Ors., CS(COMM) 181/2026.
The Court also directed the Department of Telecommunications (DoT) and the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) to notify Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to block access to several allegedly infringing websites and domain names hosting the impugned applications.
Background Of The Case
Sporta Technologies Private Limited, which operates the Dream11 fantasy sports platform, filed the suit before the Delhi High Court.
Advocates Sidharth Chopra, Devvrat Joshi, Yatinder Garg, Raghav Goyal, Snehima Jauhari and Sankalp Arya appeared for the plaintiff.
The plaintiff stated that it owns the well-known “Dream11” and “Dream Sports” series of trademarks. It has operated the Dream11 platform since 2012.
The platform allows users to create fantasy teams made up of real-world athletes. Users participate in contests based on players’ real-life performances. The platform offers both free contests and paid contests with entry fees and rewards.
The company also informed the Court that the Dream11 application has over 200 million registered users and more than 100 million Android downloads. It added that it has invested substantial resources in brand promotion and marketing.
The plaintiff further claimed copyright over the user interface, layout, design, colour scheme, icons, graphical elements and overall look and feel of the Dream11 application. It stated that these elements qualify as original artistic works under the Copyright Act, 1957.
Allegations Against The Defendants
According to the plaint, the plaintiff discovered advertisements on Facebook and Instagram in December 2025 promoting real-money gaming applications under the marks “Come x Dream11”, “Come” and “Come Sports.”
The company began receiving user complaints about these applications in January and February 2026.
After investigating the issue, the plaintiff alleged that Defendant No. 1, described as a rogue entity, operated mobile applications and websites using the impugned marks and domain names.
These websites included come.com, come-dream11.com, comesports.in, comeapk.in, come-game.com, come-games.com, come11game.com and comedream11.live, among others. Users could download APK files for the applications through these sites.
The plaintiff alleged that the rogue applications copied the user interface, graphics, layout, colour scheme and overall appearance of the Dream11 app.
It further alleged that the defendant used Dream11 trademarks and extracted footage from Dream11 advertisements. The defendant allegedly used these materials to portray the impugned platform as a “comeback version” of Dream11.
Counsel for the plaintiff argued that the defendant attempted to exploit the goodwill of the Dream11 brand. They submitted that the defendant’s actions could mislead users into believing that the impugned platform was affiliated with the plaintiff.
The plaintiff also argued that such conduct violated the Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Act, 1925, which prohibits online money games in India.
Court’s Observations
After examining the material on record, the Court held that the plaintiff had established a prima facie case for interim relief.
The Court also found that the balance of convenience favoured the plaintiff.
Justice Singh observed that Section 28 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 grants the registered proprietor of a trademark the exclusive right to use the mark and restrain others from infringing it.
The Court noted that the defendant appeared to promote real-money fantasy gaming applications under the impugned marks. The defendant also represented them as another version of the Dream11 platform.
According to the Court, such conduct could mislead the public into believing that the services originated from or were associated with the plaintiff.
The Court further observed that a comparison of the competing materials showed that the defendant had attempted to cash in on the goodwill and reputation of Dream11. The defendant allegedly used identical or deceptively similar trademarks and reproduced copyright-protected elements.
Court’s Directions
The Court restrained Defendant No. 1 and any person acting on its behalf from using the plaintiff’s trademarks “Dream11”, “Dream Sports” or any deceptively similar mark.
This restriction applies to domain names, websites, mobile applications, social media posts, advertisements and promotional communications.
The Court also restrained the defendants from reproducing, adapting, copying or communicating to the public any of the plaintiff’s copyrighted materials. This includes Dream11 advertisements and the application interface.
Further, DoT and MeitY were directed to notify Internet Service Providers to block access to the infringing domain names listed in Annexure A of the order.
The Court also allowed the plaintiff to notify ISPs, domain registrars and social media platforms such as Google and Meta about additional infringing websites so that appropriate action can be taken.
The plaintiff may also inform DoT and MeitY about further violations by rogue websites.
The Court directed the plaintiff to comply with Order XXXIX Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure within one week and to file a compliance affidavit within two weeks.
The matter will now proceed after the issuance of summons to the defendants.
Case Title: Sporta Technologies Private Limited v. Come Sports & Ors.
