PATANJALI AYURVED LTD vs META PLATFORMS INC ORS & ORS.

* 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.

1 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 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:-

“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 video and further to injunct them from
promoting their own product i.e. their own channel where is
posted under the trade name of the plaintiff.

7. Since the parody was made not for the sole purpose of criticism
or defaming the plaintiff but in order to increase the viewership of
the channel/ web link where it was posted, hence it amounts to
infringement of plaintiffs trademark. Further it is the own claim of

plaintiff that it has been used by You Tube and Facebook for the
purpose of generating revenue while the video was played and in
order to increase their own viewership/TRPs, hence it amounts to
infringement.
8. Further perusal of the video would show that the intent to make
the video is not to defame the trademark of the plaintiff as such, as
plaintiff is not into manufacturing of men’s undergarment but
advertisement/video has been made in a comic way so that it is
viewed by the viewers to be enjoyed. Such videos would increase
hits to the URL/ web link where they are posted. Needless to say,
You Tube and Facebook also generate revenue as is claimed.
Further as per the own case of plaintiff, the publishing and
continuous viewership of such videos has adversely affected the
reputation of the plaintiff and has caused business losses to them .
Hence this advertisement/ video has been used by defendants to
promote their own business on various website/ URLs/ web links/
YouTube/ Facebook. It is generating revenue for the defendants
and is causing losses to the plaintiff. The hits are being generated
as the video has name of Patanjali, in it and hence viewership is
sought in the name of plaintiffs’ trademark. Hence there is loss of
reputation of plaintiff’s trademark by the usage of this trademark in
the present parody. This parody is commercial transactions by the
defendants to promote their own business online.
9. In the garb of the present injunction suit, an injunction is sought
thereby injuncting the defendants from playing the said trademark
infringement video on their website/ portal/URL.
10. This being a suit for trade mark injunction/ infringement and
seeking damages for infringement of their trademark beside other
reliefs, it lies within the jurisdiction of Commercial Court. The
present suit is not maintainable before this Court, hence it is hereby
returned with the liberty to file in the Court of appropriate
jurisdiction.
11. Original plaint and documents be returned to the plaintiff after
obtaining certifies copies on record.”

7. Learned counsel for the appellant has urged that the learned
Trial Court has committed grave error in holding that the suit is of
commercial nature and invited the attention of the Court to the
definition of „Commercial Dispute” as given in Section 2 (c) (xvii) of

the Commercial Courts Act, 20152. It was vehemently urged that the
appellant/plaintiff is aggrieved since the offending video is not only
infringing their trademark, but also defamatory and disparaging in
nature towards its brand ambassadors. Relief of compensation is also
claimed for purported defamation.
8. Per-contra, learned counsel for the respondents nos. 1,2,3 and 5
urged that no proceedings can be brought against them as they are
simply „intermediary” in terms of the Section 2(w) of the Information
and Technology Act, 20003 and are exempted from any liability in
terms Section 79 of the said Act.
9. Having heard learned counsels for the parties, at the outset the
impugned order dated 28.07.2023 passed by the learned Trial court
cannot be sustained.
10. It will be relevant to reproduce relevant provisions of CPC:-

2 CC Act
3 IT Act

Order VII Rule 10 CPC
“10. Return of plaint.—(1) (Subject to the provisions of Rule 10-
A, the plaint shall) at any stage of the suit be returned to be
presented to the Court in which the suit should have been
instituted.
(Explanation.—For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared
that a court of appeal or revision may direct, after setting aside the
decree passed in a suit, the return of the plaint under this sub-rule.)
(2) Procedure on returning plaint.—On returning a plaint the
Judge shall endorse thereon the date of its presentation and return,
the name of the party presenting it, and a brief statement of the
reasons for returning it.”
Order VII Rule 10A CPC

“10-A. Power of Court to fix a date of appearance in the Court
where plaint is to be filed after its return. — (1) Where, in any
suit, after the defendant has appeared, the Court is of opinion that

the plaint should be returned, it shall, before doing so, intimate its
decision to the plaintiff.
(2) Where an intimation is given to the plaintiff under sub-rule (1),
the plaintiff may make an application to the Court—
(a) specifying the Court in which he proposes to present the
plaint after its return,
(b) praying that the Court may fix a date for the appearance
of the parties in the said Court, and
(c) requesting that the notice of the date so fixed may be
given to him and to the defendant.
(3) Where an application is made by the plaintiff under sub-rule
(2), the Court shall, before returning the plaint and notwithstanding
that the order for return of plaint was made by it on the ground that
it has no jurisdiction to try the suit,—
(a) fix a date for the appearance of the parties in the Court
in which the plaint is proposed to be presented, and
(b) give to the plaintiff and to the defendant notice of such
date for appearance.
(4) Where the notice of the date for appearance is given under sub-
rule (3),—
(a) it shall not be necessary for the Court in which the
plaint is presented after its return, to serve the defendant
with a summons for appearance in the suit, unless that
Court, for reasons to be recorded, otherwise directs, and
(b) the said notice shall be deemed to be a summons for the
appearance of the defendant in the Court in which the plaint
is presented on the date so fixed by the Court by which the
plaint was returned.
(5) Where the application made by the plaintiff under sub-rule (2)
is allowed by the Court, the plaintiff shall not be entitled to appeal
against the order returning the plaint.”

11. On a careful perusal of the aforesaid provision in the C.P.C.,
reverting to the instant matter, it is but evident that the learned Trial
Court did not follow the mandate provided under Order VII Rule
10A(1) of the CPC. Incidentally, it was urged by learned counsels for
the parties from both sides that the learned Trial Court never invited

any query from them with regard to application, if any, of the CC Act
and that the impugned order has been passed suo motu without
hearing them on the above-mentioned ground. Since the amended
Rule 10A to Order VII CPC was not followed, the impugned order
cannot be sustained.
12. Learned counsel for the respondents also urged that there is no
cause of action in favour of the appellant/plaintiff so as to institute any
suit against them, which ought to be rejected under Order VII Rule
11(a) CPC. It was further urged that the offensive video is by all
means a case of an innocuous parody which neither disparages the
trademark of the appellant/plaintiff nor in any manner results in
defamation. It is further urged that they are not making any financial
gains as such and rather such video would otherwise be protected in
exercise of fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression
under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.
13. In view of the aforesaid discussions, the appeal is allowed and
the learned Trial Court is directed to hear the parties afresh and decide
the issues involved in the suit afresh after hearing the parties. The
parties shall appear before the learned Trial Court for hearing on
01.12.2023. This order is without prejudice to the rights and
contentions of the parties. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed
of.

DHARMESH SHARMA, J.
NOVEMBER 07, 2023
SP