O R D E R

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 shall investigate any complaint to be made by the plaintiff to them alleging use of its trademark and its variations as keywords resulting in the diversion of traffic from the website of the plaintiff to that of the advertiser.

(II) The defendant Nos.1 and 3 shall also investigate and review the overall effect of an Ad to ascertain that the same is not infringing / passing off the trademark of the plaintiff.

(III) If it is found that the usage of trademark(s) and its variations as keywords and / or overall effect of the Ad has the effect of infringing / passing off the trademark of the plaintiff then the defendant Nos.1 and 3 shall restrain the advertiser from using the same and remove / block such advertisements.”

3. The instant application has been moved under Order XXXIX Rule 2A read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 („CPC‟ for short) and Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 alleging that the respondents/alleged contemnors had violated the order dated 30th October, 2021.

4. According to the applicants/plaintiffs, when they sought to conduct a Google search with the keywords „AGARWAL PACKERS & MOVERS and AGGARWAL PACKERS & MOVERS‟, they were shocked to see that the Search Engine still reflected the third parties sponsored links with the use of the said keywords. What troubled them more was that nowhere on their websites, the marks „AGARWAL/AGGARWAL/AGARWAL PACKERS & MOVERS/AGGARWAL PACKERS & MOVERS‟ in conjunction with each other were listed and despite this, such third parties websites appear on the top results of Google. This according to them was a violation of the interim injunction and a notice was addressed to the respondents/alleged contemnors on 29th November, 2021. The respondent/alleged contemnor No.6 sent a response on 3rd December, 2021, which, according to the applicants/plaintiffs, contained a misinterpretation of the judgment dated 30th October, 2021. Once again on 14th December, 2021, the applicants/plaintiffs found that the respondents/alleged contemnors continued to permit third parties to use „AGARWAL PACKERS & MOVERS‟ and „AGGARWAL PACKERS & MOVERS‟ as a keyword/meta tag/trade mark. The sponsored links which were part of the notice sent by the applicants‟/plaintiffs‟ counsel on 29th November, 2021 continue to appear in the Ads section of the respondents‟/alleged contemnors‟ website. The screenshots have been reproduced in the application.

5. It is the grievance of the applicants/plaintiffs that the Search Engine www.google.com continue to list the applicants‟/plaintiffs‟ trade mark „AGARWAL PACKERS AND MOVERS‟ as well as „DRS AGARWAL PACKERS AND MOVERS‟ as one of the top options. The Keyword Planner Tool accessed on 26th January, 2022 on the Search Engine www.google.com reflected that the applicants‟/plaintiffs‟ trade ma