Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Dharmesh Sharma, J.
Patanjali Ayurved Ltd - Appellant
Versus
Meta Platforms Inc & Ors. - Respondents
FAO 280 of 2023, CM Appl. 56965 of 2023
Decided On : 07-11-2023
Trademark Infringement - Commercial Dispute - Civil Procedure Code, 1908[CPC] - Information and Technology Act, 2000[IT Act] - Commercial Courts Act, 2015[CC Act] - Order VII Rule 10, Order VII Rule 10A CPC
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a healthcare products company, filed a suit against the respondents for unauthorized use of its trademark 'PATANJALI' in a video advertisement of men's undergarments. The trial court returned the plaint, stating that it was a commercial dispute and should be filed in the Commercial Court.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the trial court erred in returning the plaint without following the mandate provided under Order VII Rule 10A(1) of the CPC. It also held that there was a cause of action for the appellant to institute the suit and directed the trial court to hear the parties afresh and decide the issues involved in the suit.
Issues: The issues involved were the jurisdiction of the court, whether the video advertisement constituted trademark infringement, and whether the respondents were exempted from liability as intermediaries under the IT Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the trial court erred in returning the plaint without following the mandate provided under Order VII Rule 10A(1) of the CPC. It also found that there was a cause of action for the appellant to institute the suit and directed the trial court to hear the parties afresh and decide the issues involved in the suit.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the trial court was directed to hear the parties afresh and decide the issues involved in the suit.
JUDGMENT
Dharmesh Sharma, J. - The present order shall decide an appeal preferred by the appellant/plaintiff under Order XLIII Rule 1 r/w Section 106 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908[CPC] as amended upto date, assailing the impugned order dated 28.07.2023 passed by the learned Trial Court whereby the plaint has been returned purportedly in exercise of powers under Order VII Rule 10 CPC.
2. Shorn of unnecessary details, appellant/plaintiff is stated to be a company incorporated under the Company Act, 1956 and it is stated to be engaged in manufacturing and distribution of various healthcare products throughout India as well as abroad using its registered trademark 'PATANJALI'.
3. The grievance of the appellant/plaintiff is that a video has been uploaded by respondent no.4/defendant no.4 on the internet platforms management and controlled by respondent nos. 1 to 3 and 5. Suffice to state that the alleged video is an advertisement of mens' undergarment, wherein appeHant's/plamtiffs trademark alongwith pictures of its brand ambassadors and directors are shown used unauthorizedly.
4. It is further the grievance of the plaintiff/appellant that although there is no information available about respondent no.4/defendant no.4, who supposedly uploaded the said video, however, the video is being displayed on the internet platform of defendant no.5/Youtube LLC providing access to view the said video to internet users, and thereby is generating revenues for them.
5. It is the case of the appellant/plaintiff that respondents/ defendants are violating its statutory and common law rights to use its registered trademark 'PATANJALI' exclusive to appellant/plaintiff. It would be apposite to extract the relevant paragraphs from the plaint which are as follows:-
"1. ...It is further stated that by allowing the Uploading/sharing/dissemination of the impugned videos/URLs/ Weblinks by the defendants is clearly in breach/violation of the statutory and common law rights of the plaintiff in its traden1a1 "PATANJALI'' and is causing losses to the sales of the Plaintiff.
13. c ) .. : . . . It is stated that the trademark of the Plaintiff has been falsely associated with the offending product whereas the Plaintiff does not manufacture or offer for sale any kind of undergarments.......
13. i).... Further, the said impugned videos at various links on the portal of the Defendant No.3 are displaying advertisements thereby showing that the Defendant no.3 is also generating and earning revenue through such advertisements.
13.k) That moreover, the contents of the impugned videos/URLs/Weblinks are not only crass, vulgar, misleading and per se defamatory, but are aimed to prejudicially affect the reputation of the Plaintiff and further to stir a controversy in order to gamer publicity for the impugned videos .
13.1)..... The creators of the defamatory video has attempted to demean the Plaintiff and have illegally used the trademark and name of the Plaintiff being ''PATANJALI" without any intimation or authorization to the Plaintiff.
13.1) The false and defamatory videos have been created, uploaded and circulated with the sole intention of creating confusion in mind of general public and ridiculing the Plaintiff without any cause..... "
6. It appears that summons of the suit were issued to the respondents, except for respondent no. 4, who put their appearance and the offending video in question was played in the Trial Court on 19.10.2022. The learned Trial Court on considering the aforesaid averments as also the content of the offending video held as under:-
"6. A perusal of the above extract from the plaint and entirety of the plaint would show that plaintiff's are claiming damages for unauthorized user of their trademarks by defendants. Though the plaint is drafted in such a way that the use of the words trademark or its infringement have not been explicitly used. However this suit is basically filed to restrain the infringers from using the trademark of the plaintiff in this
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the trial court must follow the mandate provided under Order VII Rule 10A(1) of the CPC when returning a plaint, and there must be a cause of ....
The deliberate attempt to defame and disparage Plaintiff's goods, trademark infringement, and copyright infringement were key legal principles established in the judgment.
A plaintiff must use their registered trademark to claim infringement; failure to do so undermines the basis for an injunction.
Injunction – Grant or refusal of interim injunction is absolutely discretionary power of Commercial Court keeping in mind material available before it.
A licensee cannot claim disparagement of trademark without the owner present as a party; non-joinder does not justify the rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.
Defamation claims must be substantiated with evidence; interim injunctions can be granted to restrain publication of statements deemed severely defamatory.
The court underscored the urgency for trial courts to address applications for interim relief in defamation cases involving social media to prevent reputational harm.
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
