Beyond the 'Facebake' Saga: Delhi High Court Closes the Door on Additional Damages

In a significant resolution to a protracted trademark enforcement battle, the High Court of Delhi has disposed of an execution petition filed by Meta Platforms Inc. against Noufel Malol and his venture, Ehrlich Foods and Beverages Pvt. Ltd. The Court’s decision emphasizes the necessity of procedural fairness—even when dealing with established trademark infringement.

A Recipe for Legal Trouble: The 'Facebake' Dispute

The conflict began when Meta Platforms sought an injunction against the defendants for using the marks 'FACEBAKE' and 'FACECAKE', which were found to be deceptively similar to the iconic 'FACEBOOK' brand. A permanent injunction was granted in July 2022, alongside an award for nominal damages and legal costs. While the parties navigated a years-long dispute involving 53 franchise outlets in and around Bengaluru, the recent execution proceedings centered on whether the defendants had fully complied with the court's decree.

Conflicting Narratives of Compliance

Meta Platforms contended that the defendants had engaged in "wilful, deliberate, and conscious disobedience" by continuing their infringing activities long after the 2022 decree. Counsel for the decree holder argued that partial compliance was insufficient and that they were entitled to additional restitutionary compensation for the years the defendants profited from the infringing branding.

In contrast, the judgment debtors maintained that they have "the highest regard for the orders and judgment of this Court." They presented evidence showing that they had renamed all 53 franchise outlets to 'BUNCAKE' and repeatedly expressed their willingness to pay the decreed damages, provided Meta shared their bank account details—a point of friction that seemingly delayed the final settlement.

The Court’s Verdict: Due Process and Substantial Compliance

Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora found that the defendants had indeed achieved substantial compliance with the permanent injunction. Of particular interest was the Court’s observation regarding the delay in enforcement.

The Court noted that although the decree was passed in 2022, Meta Platforms failed to serve any notice upon the defendants until the execution petition was filed in December 2024. The Court pointedly remarked that it was the decree holder who, at times, demonstrated a lack of initiative in accepting the court-awarded payments by failing to provide bank details to the judgment debtors in a timely fashion.

Key Observations

> "The restitutionary compensation is misconceived and devoid of merit."

> "Ordinarily, before approaching the Court, the decree holder could have issued notice to the JDs seeking compliance of the decree dated 06.07.2022."

> "As the facts stand today, however, the judgment debtors are in compliance with the decree of permanent injunction and have taken appropriate steps in that regard."

Implications for Future IP Litigation

The Court decided to terminate the proceedings, noting that the damages and costs had been satisfied and that the defendants had remedied the remaining signage issues. Crucially, the Court advised the decree holder that should any further infractions occur, they are expected to issue a formal notice to the defendants before returning to court.

This ruling serves as a reminder to intellectual property holders that the court’s contempt and execution powers are not to be invoked prematurely. Without a demonstrated record of bad faith despite prior notice, the judiciary is unlikely to award additional restitutionary damages beyond what was originally decreed. For businesses, the takeaway is clear: while the protection of a brand is paramount, the path to enforcement requires proactive communication once a judicial order is in place.