A legal dispute between WinZO Games Private Limited and Creativeland Advertising Private Limited has been the subject of arbitration, with allegations of intellectual property misuse and breach of confidentiality obligations at the core of the matter. The Delhi High Court, in its decision dated March 18, 2025, addressed an appeal against an ad-interim order issued by the Sole Arbitrator, highlighting critical aspects of intellectual property rights and contractual obligations.
Storyboard18 had first reported the legal battle on March 5, titled “Creativeland Asia Takes WinZO to Court, Cries Foul Over Misuse of Creative Idea.” The central issue revolved around the tagline “Jeeto Har DinZo,” which Creativeland Advertising claims to have developed exclusively for WinZO Games during preliminary campaign discussions.
According to the Delhi High Court order copy dated March 18, WinZO Games engaged Creativeland Advertising in October 2024 for a brand campaign. A Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA) was executed on November 8, 2024. Creativeland Advertising presented campaign concepts, including the tagline, through multiple pitch decks between December 2024 and January 2025. In January 2025, WinZO Games expressed interest in the tagline and sought guidance on its positioning.
Creativeland Advertising claimed that in February 2025, WinZO Games unexpectedly terminated discussions, opting to work with a different creative team and offering Rs. 10 lakhs as compensation for the tagline. Creativeland Advertising filed for arbitration, seeking an injunction to restrain WinZO Games from using the tagline without authorization.
Creativeland Asia takes WinZO to court, cries foul over misuse of creative idea
The case was presented before a Sole Arbitrator, who was tasked with determining whether WinZO Games had breached confidentiality obligations under the NDA and whether Creativeland Advertising was entitled to injunctive relief.
The Arbitrator, in his findings, determined that while an NDA was in place, there was no formal agreement governing the creative engagement, aside from preliminary proposals and negotiations. The Arbitrator found that the NDA alone did not explicitly grant ownership of the tagline to Creativeland Advertising, nor did it prevent WinZO Games from independently developing similar brand elements.
Since the dispute primarily concerned financial compensation rather than clear intellectual property infringement, the Arbitrator ruled that damages could be awarded if Creativeland Advertising suffered financial harm. The Arbitrator denied the injunction sought by Creativeland Advertising, reasoning that disputed questions regarding the originality of the tagline warranted a full trial rather than an immediate restraint on WinZO Games’ use of the tagline.
As a protective measure, the Arbitrator directed WinZO Games to furnish a Bank Guarantee of Rs. 50 lakhs.
Creativeland Advertising challenged the Arbitrator’s order under Section 37(2)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, arguing that the tagline constituted confidential information and that irreparable harm would be caused by its unauthorized use.
However, the Delhi High Court upheld the Arbitrator’s decision, emphasizing that the arbitration order was based on a plausible interpretation of facts and contractual obligations. The NDA permitted the independent development of concepts by both parties, and WinZO Games’ actions did not amount to an evident breach. Creativeland Advertising’s claim for injunctive relief was not justified since monetary compensation was deemed an adequate remedy. The Arbitrator’s direction for a Bank Guarantee provided a reasonable safeguard for Creativeland Advertising’s interests.
The Delhi HC, in its order, said, “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.”
WinZO’s appeal against the arbitrator order is listed for hearing on April 14.