“Adequately Compensable in Terms of Money”: Delhi High Court Upholds Arbitrator’s Refusal of Injunction Against Use of Tagline “Jeeto Har DinZo” by Winzo Games
Safiya Malik
The Delhi High Court dismissed an appeal challenging the denial of interim injunction by a Sole Arbitrator in a dispute concerning alleged unauthorised use of a tagline and breach of confidentiality. The Court held that the arbitrator's decision did not merit interference under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. It recorded that “the claimant is not entitled to the relief of injunction with respect to the tagline / hook line in as much as there exist several disputed questions / issues that are required to be determined in the trial of the arbitration proceedings qua taglines.”
The matter was heard by Justice Subramonium Prasad, who observed that the learned Arbitrator had drawn a plausible conclusion after considering the material on record, including the Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA) executed between the parties. The Court noted that the arbitrator directed the respondent to deposit ₹20 lakhs as a protective measure pending final adjudication but declined to grant an injunction restraining use of the tagline.
The present dispute arose out of a commercial interaction between a creative agency and an online gaming platform. The appellant, a creative agency, filed an appeal under Section 37(2)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act against an ad-interim order dated 28 February 2025 passed by the learned Sole Arbitrator. The appellant alleged that the respondent had used its proprietary tagline “Jeeto Har DinZo” without authorisation, in breach of the confidentiality obligations under an executed NDA.
According to the appellant, it was first approached by the respondent on 11 October 2024 with interest in a potential brand campaign. Following initial exchanges, an NDA was executed between the parties on 8 November 2024. The campaign brief, shared on 20 November 2024, contained specifications about the brand positioning, audience insights, messaging tone, and adherence to the Advertising Standards Council of India’s gaming guidelines. A revised brief was later shared via a password-protected link on 3 December 2024.
Subsequently, the appellant presented multiple pitch decks incorporating the tagline “Jeeto Har DinZo”. The first pitch deck was presented on 6 December 2024 in an in-person meeting, which was recorded by the respondent using an AI-based transcription tool. The second and third decks followed on 23 December 2024 and 10 January 2025 respectively, with continuous feedback from the respondent. Commercial discussions took place concurrently, with the appellant proposing ₹30 lakhs for the campaign in an email dated 15 January 2025.
On 31 January 2025, the respondent informed the appellant that the tagline had been incorporated into some internal scripts and sought positioning guidance. The appellant stated that this led it to believe that a formal engagement would follow. However, on 4 February 2025, the respondent informed the appellant of its decision to proceed with another creative team. The respondent asserted that the tagline had originated from internal strategies and offered ₹10 lakhs as compensation.
The appellant filed a petition under Section 9 of the Act before the High Court on 19 February 2025 seeking to restrain the respondent from using the tagline or any confidential materials. On 24 February 2025, the Court referred the matter to arbitration. The Sole Arbitrator, after hearing both sides, declined to grant an injunction but directed the respondent to furnish a bank guarantee of ₹50 lakhs, later reduced to a deposit of ₹20 lakhs.
The appellant’s argument was premised on the NDA and the assertion that the tagline was an original creation disclosed in confidence. It submitted that “the information shared between the parties was to be used for the purpose of evaluation of potential business opportunity under the NDA and, therefore, the Respondent herein could not have used the tagline or shared it with anyone without seeking permission or authorisation of the Appellant herein.”
The appellant contended that the tagline “Jeeto Har DinZo” was developed independently and featured centrally in all pitch decks. It was argued that its unauthorised use would result in irreparable harm, and that Clause 3 of the NDA entitled the appellant to injunctive relief.
In reply, the respondent submitted that the tagline incorporated its registered trademark “WinZo” and was not exclusively the appellant’s proprietary work. It stated that “DinZo rhymes with WinZo and the Appellant cannot claim property rights for ‘Jeeto Har Din’ as it is a common reference to ‘winning everyday’ in vernacular which is used even by its competitors.”
The respondent argued that the appellant was an advertising agency seeking compensation for services and that no formal contract existed for the final use of the tagline.
The Court noted that the learned Arbitrator had examined both Clause 3 and Clause 8 of the NDA, which set out the confidentiality obligations and exceptions for independent development. Quoting the NDA, the Arbitrator recorded: “The Parties agree that the Disclosing Party will suffer irreparable injury if its Confidential Information is made public, released to a third party, or otherwise disclosed in breach of this Agreement and that the Disclosing Party shall be entitled to obtain injunctive relief against a threatened breach.”
However, the Arbitrator also relied on Clause 8, observing that “there is no limitation on any of the parties to engage any other agency for developing the products and concepts.”
The Arbitrator found that the engagement was not formalised and that there was no separately quoted price for the tagline. It was observed that “the Claimant/Appellant herein has not alleged any copyright infringement and the only allegation is of breach of confidentiality and of unauthorized use of the tagline/hookline.”
In rejecting the injunction, the Arbitrator stated: “Given the nature of the relationship between the parties, it would be wise to relegate the petitioner claim of interim measures to the claim of damages if any in the arbitration proceedings rather than straightaway proceeding for the injunction.”
Further, the Arbitrator noted: “There is no formal engagement and agreed terms between the two and even it is disputed that the valuation of the brand name is covered under the initial proposal shared on 15.01.2025 by the claimant.”
The question of sole authorship of the tagline was also found to be a disputed fact requiring trial. The Arbitrator stated: “It is equally a disputed question of fact whether the tag line was created by the claimant solely or under the guidance of the respondent.”
The Arbitrator held that the respondent’s assurance not to use the pitch decks addressed the confidentiality concern, and that the tagline issue involved monetary claims. The Arbitrator recorded: “Since the title of the tag line / hook line itself is under dispute and prima facie it appears to me that it is merely a money matter and can be adequately compensable in terms of money... the claim of injunction... is deferred until trial.”
The Arbitrator also doubted whether the tagline constituted confidential information: “It is really a matter of doubt... as to whether the tagline which was created by the claimant on behalf of the respondent was actually shared in confidence.”
The High Court, after reviewing the arbitral order, observed that the arbitrator’s approach aligned with the principles outlined in World Window Infrastructure (P) Ltd. v. Central Warehousing Corporation, 2021 SCC OnLine Del 5099, and other precedents restricting judicial interference at the interim stage of arbitration.
The Court recorded: “The conclusion arrived at by the learned Arbitrator is a plausible conclusion and does not require any interference under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act.” It further stated: “The case laws relied on by the learned Counsel for the Appellant are distinguishable on facts.”
The Court upheld the arbitrator’s decision and recorded: “In view of the above, the present Appeal is dismissed, along with the pending applications, if any.” It further recorded: “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.”
In relation to ARB. A. (COMM.) 15/2025 and I.A. 6010/2025, the Court directed as follows:
“Issue notice. Reply be filed within two weeks. Response thereto, if any, be filed before the next date of hearing. List on 14.04.2025.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. Chander M. Lall, Senior Advocate with Mr. Nishad Nadkarni, Mr. Nirupam Lodha, Ms. Khushboo Jhunjhunwala, Mr. Kshitij Parashar, Mr. Gautam Wadhwa, and Ms. Annanya Mehan, Advocates
For the Respondents: Mr. Abhishek Malhotra, Senior Advocate with Ms. Srishti Gupta, Mr. Kumarjeet Ray and Ms. Anukriti Trivedi, Advocates
Case Title: Creativeland Advertising Private Limited and vice versa v. Winzo Games Private Limited
Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:1617
Case Number: ARB. A. (COMM.) 15/2025 & 17/2025
Bench: Justice Subramonium Prasad
[Read/Download order]
