Back
ASHA MENON
Drs Logistics (p) Ltd And Another – Appellant
Versus
Google India Pvt Ltd – Respondent
JUDGMENT
asha Menon, J. - I.a. 2173/2022 (of plaintiffs u/O XXXIX R-2a CPC and under Section 12 of the Contempt of Court act, 1971 against the defendants/contemnors for violation of order dated 30.10.2021)
1. This order has been necessitated on account of the vehement opposition on behalf of the defendants No.1 & 3/respondents No.1 to 17 against the issuance of notice on the application.
2. For a brief background, it may be noted that the applicants are the plaintiffs in the suit seeking permanent injunction against the defendants, in which I.as. No.21153/2011 and 4474/2014 were filed for interim relief. Vide order dated 30th October, 2021, I.as. No.21153/2011 and 4474/2014 were allowed on the following terms and para 127 of the judgment is reproduced for ready reference:
'127. I must state here that the plaintiff can seek protection of its trademarks which are registered in view of Section 28 of the TM act, but cannot have any right on surnames / generic words like Packers or Movers individually. Having said that in view of my above discussion, the applications are liable to be allowed, subject to final determination of the suit in the following manner:
(I) The defendant Nos.1 and 3 s
The main legal point established in the judgment is the violation of the interim injunction order and the importance of preventing diversion of traffic from the plaintiff's website to that of a compe....
The use of trademarks as keywords in advertising can constitute infringement under trademark laws, even if not visible to consumers, as it may mislead and divert traffic from legitimate trademark own....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the finding of willful disobedience of the court's injunction order by the respondent, leading to the imposition of a two-week simple imprisonment ....
The use of a registered trade mark as a keyword through Google Ads Program by a competitor constitutes trademark infringement under the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
Scope of execution proceedings are irrelevant for contempt jurisdiction of High Court.
The court established that third parties can be held liable for contempt if they knowingly assist in violating court orders, reinforcing the court's authority to enforce compliance.
Nominative fair use and Section 30 of the Trademarks Act, 1999 were central to the judgment, allowing the use of the 'GeM' mark for informational purposes without creating misrepresentation.
The power to punish for contempt should be exercised with care and caution, and the contempt jurisdiction should be confined to deliberate disobedience of court orders.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
