Contempt of court requires proof of willful disobedience. Where judicial orders are limited to investigating specific complaints, they cannot be interpreted to impose a proactive obligation on service providers to monitor all third-party content for potential intellectual property infringements.

JUDGMENT :

TEJAS KARIA, J

I.A. No. 18605/2025

1. The present Application has been filed by the Plaintiffs under Order XXXIX Rule 2A read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”) and Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (“CC Act”) for violation of judgments dated 30.10.2021 passed in I.A. Nos. 21153/2011 and 4474/2014 and 10.08.2023 passed in FAO(OS)(COMM) 2/2022 and FAO(OS)(COMM) 22/2022 (“Judgments”).

FACTUAL BACKGROUND:

2. The present Suit has been filed by the Plaintiffs praying, inter alia, for permanent and mandatory injunction against the infringement of the trade mark, passing off and unfair competition in respect of ‘AGARWAL’ and / or ‘AGGARWAL PACKERS AND MOVERS’ and / or ‘DRS Logistics’ or any other trade mark or name similar to the said Marks (“Subject Marks”).

3. Vide judgment dated 30.10.2021, passed in I.A. Nos. 21153/2011 and 4474/2014 under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of CPC, it was directed that:

(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.”

4. Pursuant to passing of judgment dated 30.10.2021, Defendant Nos. 1 and 3 filed appeals FAO(OS)(COMM) 2/2022 and FAO(OS)(COMM) 22/2022, respectively. The said appeals were decided vide common judgment dated 10.08.2023, wherein the Division Bench of this Court refused to interfere with the directions contained in judgment dated 30.10.2021.

5. Subsequent to the pronouncement of the Judgments, the Plaintiffs observed that the Subject Marks continued to be displayed on the search engine of Defendant No. 3 as part of sponsored links of third parties when searches were conducted using keywords comprising the Subject Marks. It was further noticed that, although the Subject Marks did not appear on the websites of such third parties, those websites nevertheless appeared amongst the top search results on the search engine of Defendant No. 3 upon searches being made with keywords containing the Subject Marks.

6. When the Plaintiffs’ Counsel conducted a search on the search engine of Defendant No. 3 with the keywords of the Subject Marks on 07.06.2025, 09.06.2025, 11.06.2025, 13.06.2025, 16.06.2025 and 25.06.2025, they were shocked to see that the search engine of Defendant Nos. 1 and 3 was still reflecting the third-parties sponsored links on searching with the keywords containing the Subject Marks,

7. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs addressed a Notice dated 17.06.2025 (“Notice’) through Counsel to Defendant Nos. 1 and 3, informing them of the alleged breach of the Judgments and calling upon them to ensure immediate compliance with the directions contained therein. The said notice was accompanied by screenshots evidencing the alleged violations.

8. On 07.07.2025, Defendant No. 3, through its Counsel, issued a holding response to the Plaintiffs’ Counsel.

9. Even prior thereto, the Plaintiffs had addressed communications to Defendant Nos. 1 and 3 al