FAO 280/2023

Page 1 of 7

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%

Judgment reserved on : 03 November 2023

Judgment pronounced on: 07 November 2023

+

FAO 280/2023, CM APPL. 56965/2023

PATANJALI AYURVED LTD

..... Appellant

Through:

Mr. Zoya Junaid, Mr. Pullit

Gupta, Mr. Umang Verma and

Mr. A. Dutta, Advs.

versus

META PLATFORMS INC & ORS. ..... Respondents

Through:

Ms. Mamta R. Jha, Mr. Rohan

Ahuja

and

Ms.

Shruttima

Ehera, Advs. for R-2/Google

LLC

Mr. Deepak Gogia and Mr.

Aadhar Nautiyal, Advs. for R-

3/X Corp.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DHARMESH SHARMA

J U D G M E N T

DHARMESH SHARMA, J.

1.

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, 1908¹ 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.

1CPC

Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD

KUMAR VATS

Signing Date:07.11.2023

13:02:49

Signature Not Verified

FAO 280/2023

Page 2 of 7

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 appellant‟s/plaintiff‟s 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:-

Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD

KUMAR VATS

Signing Date:07.11.2023

13:02:49

Signature Not Verified

FAO 280/2023

Page 3 of 7

undergarments...........

the portal of the Defendant No.3 are displaying advertisements

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 video and further to injunct them from

promoting their o