Back
DHARMESH SHARMA
Patanjali Ayurved Ltd – Appellant
Versus
Meta PlatforInc – Respondent
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 abou
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
