Winzo vs. Google


Industries are implementing measures to sell their own products and improve client appeal as a result of rising worldwide competition. They occasionally have a tendency to promote their goods during this process at the risk of dishonouring or delegitimizing the product of their competitor. As a result, trademark law claims of “disparagement” are frequently made. The fact that Winzo, a firm that manages a gaming app, sued Google for publishing a notification on their website whenever any user downloaded their programme was an interesting development. Winzo claims that this statement denigrates its brand and hurts the reputation of the business. The court, on the other hand, adopted a different view and ruled that the absence of comparative advertising and the legitimacy of such disclaimers under the Information Technology Regulations, 2021, do not amount to disparagement.
In the past, trademark disputes have been heard in cases when products came with warnings or disclaimers. For instance, the WTO is now hearing arguments in the tobacco plain packaging issue about the rights of trademark owners with regard to health disclaimers and warnings that are included in cigarette and tobacco packaging.

Google verses winzo
Customers can access more than 70 games in a variety of formats from the plaintiff, a digital gaming and technology business called “WinZO”/”WinZO Games,” through mobile applications and the plaintiff’s website. The disclaimer/warning to consumers was brought to the plaintiff’s attention when Google, the defendant, sought to download the plaintiff’s application in November 2021. Please read the warning’s language as this type of file may cause damage to your device. Would you still like to keep WinZO? In response, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit and requested several supplementary reliefs as well as a decision of perpetual injunction. Among other things, the plaintiff asserted that the defendant’s notice disparages the plaintiff’s digital gaming services, which are identified by the “WinZO” and “WinZO Games” marks.

First in the order of discussion was the validity of the disclaimer. The court found that Rules 3(1)(i) and Rule (1)(k) of the IT Rules, 2021 as well as Rule 8 of the IT Rules necessitated the warnings in order to protect the user from potential hazards. Furthermore, it was found that Section 29 of the Trademarks Act was not violated by any trademark infringement. Last but not least, the reason for the disparagement was disregarded because it was impossible to compare the products.

In response to the plaintiff’s claim of disparagement, the defendants contended 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 reject the claim for disparagement by stating: “As concerns the ground of disparagement, unquestionably, there is no comparison between the products/services of the defendants and that of the goods/services of the plaintiff. Moreover, there is no advertising for products or services. As the defendants’ goods and services have no competing interests, there is, in my opinion, no basis for a case of disparagement.

It is assumed that a claim for disparagement must prove a more broad purpose of competing interests of both products based on a collective reading of the defendant’s and court’s arguments. One approach to spot this conflicting interest is to look for product comparisons or “comparative ads.” The presumption can be broken down into two components that need to be analysed to see if they are a prerequisite for disparagement to happen: first, whether an advertisement is essential; second, whether the advertisement needs to include a comparison between the objects. Using the reasoning supplied by the existing law, the court in this case considered the requirement of comparison advertisement as a required component for disparagement. However, it can also be assessed as a hastened decision by the court where it had the possibility of analysing a claim for disparagement outside the lens of comparative advertisement.

It is the process by which a company compares its product to one that is similar. It is permissible as long as the comparison highlights their own product favourably. Comparative advertising, on the other hand, enters the territory of disparagement when the rival product is denigrated or portrayed negatively as a result of the comparison between the two things. The current legal precedents also demonstrate the connection between these two subjects. “Comparative advertising is acceptable, but a promoter of a product is not entitled to degrade the goods of its competitor,” the court said in Reckitt & Colman of India v. MP Ramachandran. In Pepsico v. Hindustan Coca-Cola, the Delhi High Court also referenced the disputed advertisement when attempting to establish a criterion for disparagement. It was suggested that factors like the intention, style, and plot of the commercial had to be taken into account when determining whether an advertisement disparaged a product or not. Due to this, current legal law shows that it constitutes disparagement to compare two products in an advertisement.

But, there was no comparison of the services provided by the parties in the present case; as a result, the allegation of disparagement was denied. Even when similar products are being compared in comparative promotional claims, there are still big variations between the services offered by Google and Winzo. Google did not compare the services in order to present a warning, despite the fact that it is presumed that the services are comparable. These warnings also prevent public confusion while benefiting the greater good. As the public interest factor outweighs any prospective private interest that these enterprises may have in their mark, their claim of disparagement is invalidated even if they may have the capacity to insult the brand’s trademark.

By adhering to this understanding of what constitutes “use” of a trade mark, it is nearly impossible for a trademark to damage its reputation even if it is not “used” in the manner described above. Section 29(8) of the Act might have offered a solution to this problem, but as will be detailed below, the provision’s shortcomings preclude it from doing so. According to the Act’s Section 29(8), there are a number of scenarios in which the “use” of a trademark is illegal. The conditions under which such “use” of the trademark would not constitute infringement and would be a defence to a claim under section 29 of the Act are also outlined in section 30(1) of the Act. This permits the use of trademarks as long as they “do not take unfair advantage of or be detrimental to the distinctive character or renown of the trade mark.” It is only legal to claim infringement for any such trademark when it is used in conjunction with an advertisement because section 29(8) of the Act stipulates that “A registered trade mark is infringed by any advertising of that trade mark if such advertising…” Due to the necessity of advertising, the plaintiff is unable to demonstrate that its trade mark was used in ill faith. The legal rights and reputation of a trademark owner may be harmed by this exclusion. So, in this situation, pursuing a libel suit was a viable option for the plaintiffs to pursue their claim.


Recognizing the unique circumstances of trademark infringement on the part of the trademark owner is necessary when a mark is “used” outside the bounds of comparative advertisement but yet brings the mark into disgrace or defamation. The court’s ruling in the current case was in line with previous legal rulings on comparative advertising and disparaging speech as well as the statute’s interpretation. Also, the opportunity to investigate potential derogatory language used outside of the context of comparison advertisements and the legal standard for identifying “use” of a mark was lost.

Author: Tanya Saraswat, in case of any queries please contact/write back to us via email to or at Khurana & Khurana, Advocates and IP Attorney.


• Lokesh Vyas & Praharsh Gour, Winzo v google- missed opportunity to detail out disparagement Spicyip (2023), (last visited Mar 31, 2023).
• Times of India, Explained: Why Indian gaming platform winzo is taking Google to court – times of India TOI (2023), (last visited Mar 31, 2023).

Leave a Reply



  • June 2024
  • May 2024
  • April 2024
  • March 2024
  • February 2024
  • January 2024
  • December 2023
  • November 2023
  • October 2023
  • September 2023
  • August 2023
  • July 2023
  • June 2023
  • May 2023
  • April 2023
  • March 2023
  • February 2023
  • January 2023
  • December 2022
  • November 2022
  • October 2022
  • September 2022
  • August 2022
  • July 2022
  • June 2022
  • May 2022
  • April 2022
  • March 2022
  • February 2022
  • January 2022
  • December 2021
  • November 2021
  • October 2021
  • September 2021
  • August 2021
  • July 2021
  • June 2021
  • May 2021
  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • September 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010