Back in September 2022, WinZo, a real-money skill gaming platform, has sought an injunction against Google’s pilot programme for daily fantasy sports (DFS) and rummy apps on Google Play Store.
WinZo claimed in its lawsuit filed in the Delhi High Court on Tuesday that Google’s decision to select DFS and rummy apps for the pilot programme is “discriminatory” and an “arbitrary classification”.
Google on 7 September announced a “limited time pilot program” that would allow DFS and rummy apps to be distributed through Google Play store in India. The programme excludes real-money gaming apps like WinZo from distributing their services through the store.
DFS, or fantasy games, refer to titles where players choose a team of athletes to represent their own fictional team in any sport, such as cricket and football. These includes platforms like Dream11 and My11Circle. The performance of this ‘fantasy’ team depends on how the chosen athletes perform on any given day, and the correspondence of this real-life performance leads to virtual winnings for players of the platform. Rummy, on the other hand, refers to card games which are recognized as games of skill via various court orders. Indian law says betting on games of chance is illegal.
As a counter to the plaintiff’s claim of disparagement, the defendants claimed that “there is no comparison of the plaintiff’s application with any of the defendants’ products or services.” The court has also relied on the reasoning of the defendant to dismiss the claim for disparagement by stating: “As regards the ground of disparagement, indisputably, there is no comparison between the products/services of the defendants with that of the goods/services of the plaintiff. Nor is there any advertising for any goods or services. Therefore, there is no competing interest of the products/services of the defendants involved and in my prima facie view, no case of disparagement is made out.”
In Reckitt & Colman of India v MP Ramachandran the court held that “comparative advertising is permissible, however, a promoter of a product is not entitled to defame the goods of its competitor”. Moreover, when the Delhi High court in Pepsico. V. Hindustan Coca Cola tried to establish a test for disparagement, it did so with respect to the advertisement in question.
However, in the present case there was no comparison between the services of the parties and thus, the claim for disparagement was dismissed.
