Consensual Relationship That Later Turns Sour Is Not Rape: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in Breach of Promise Case Double Presumption of Innocence Applies; No Interference Unless Trial Court Judgment Is Perverse: Allahabad High Court in Murder Appeal Under BNSS A Single Act of Corruption Warrants Dismissal – 32 Years of Service Offers No Immunity: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds ASI’s Removal Suit Against Trustee Without Charity Commissioner’s Consent Is Statutorily Barred: Bombay High Court Government Can't Deny Implied Surrender After Refusing to Accept Possession: Madras HC Clarifies Scope of Section 111(f) of TP Act Custodial Interrogation Must Prevail Over Pre-Arrest Comfort in Hate Speech Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail for Provocative Remarks Against Migrants Mutation Order Without Notice Cannot Stand in Law: Orissa High Court Quashes Tahasildar's Rejection for Violating Natural Justice Cruelty Must Be Grave and Proven – Mere Allegations of Disobedience or Demand for Separate Residence Don’t Justify Divorce: Jharkhand High Court Rejects Husband’s Divorce Appeal Retaliatory Prosecution Cannot Override Liberty: Himachal Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in PMLA Case Post CBI Trap of ED Officer Illegal Remand Without Production of Accused Is Not a Technical Lapse, But a Constitutional Breach: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in Major NDPS Case Inherent Power Under Section 528 BNSS Not a Substitute for Article 226 When FIR Is Under Challenge Without Chargesheet or Cognizance Order: Allahabad High Court Possession Without Title Is Legally Insubstantial: Gujarat HC Dismisses Appeal By Dairy Cooperative Over Void Land Transfer You Can Prosecute a Former Director, But You Can’t Force Him to Represent the Company: Calcutta High Court Lays Down Clear Limits on Corporate Representation in PMLA Cases Conviction Cannot Rest on Tainted Testimony of Injured Witnesses in Isolation: Bombay High Court Acquits Five in Murder Case One Attesting Witness is Sufficient if He Proves Execution and Attestation of Will as Required by Law: AP High Court Land Acquisition | Delay Cannot Defeat Just Compensation: P&H High Court Grants Enhanced Compensation Despite 12-Year Delay in Review Petitions by Landowners Allegations Implausible, Motivated by Malice: Kerala High Court Quashes Rape Case After Finding Abuse Claims a Counterblast to Civil Dispute Adoptions Under Hindu Law Need No Approval from District Magistrate: Madras High Court Declares Administrative Rejection of Adoptive Birth Certificate as Illegal Findings of Fact Cannot Be Re-Appreciated in an Appeal Under Section 10F Companies Act: Madras High Court Equality Is Not A Mechanical Formula, But A Human Commitment: P&H High Court Grants Visually Impaired Mali Retrospective Promotions With Full Benefits Orissa High Court Rules Notice for No Confidence Motion Must Include Both Requisition and Resolution – Provision Held Mandatory Ashramam Built on Private Land, Managed by Family – Not a Public Religious Institution: Andhra Pradesh High Court Quashes Endowments Notification Cruelty Must Be Proved, Not Presumed: Gujarat High Court Acquits Deceased Husband In 498A Case After 22 Years Trade Dress Protection Goes Beyond Labels: Calcutta High Court Affirms Injunction Over Coconut Oil Packaging Mimicry Mere Filing of Income Tax Returns Does Not Exonerate the Accused: Madras High Court Refuses Discharge to Wife of Public Servant in ₹2 Crore DA Case

No Defamation in Parody: Delhi High Court in Trademark Infringement Case Involving ‘PATANJALI’

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a landmark ruling on November 7, 2023, the Delhi High Court, presided over by Justice Dharmesh Sharma, overturned a decision by the Trial Court regarding a trademark infringement dispute concerning a video advertisement that featured the ‘PATANJALI’ trademark. The video, described as a parody involving men’s undergarments, had sparked controversy due to its unauthorized use of the ‘PATANJALI’ brand and its ambassadors’ imagery.

Justice Sharma’s critical observations led to the allowance of the appeal filed by Patanjali Ayurved Ltd. The judgement elucidated, “The intent to make the video is not to defame the trademark of the plaintiff as such,” emphasizing the nature of the content as a parody rather than a defamatory work. The court further noted, “Such videos would increase hits to the URL/ web link where they are posted. Needless to say, YouTube and Facebook also generate revenue as is claimed.”

The court’s decision hinged on the procedural Irregularities of the Trial Court, which had returned the plaint without following the due process prescribed under Order VII Rule 10A of the CPC. The High Court instructed that the case be reheard, addressing the complexities of the digital age where content, commerce, and free speech intersect.

The case brought to the forefront the Issue of intermediary liability, with the respondents, including tech giants like Google LLC, claiming exemption under Section 79 of the Information Technology Act. However, the crux of the matter will be re-examined by the Trial Court, as directed by the High Court, on December 1, 2023.

Patanjali’s counsel, Mr. Zoya Junaid and his team, highlighted the infringement and defamation claims, whereas the respondents’ counsels, led by Ms. Mamta R. Jha for Google LLC, defended their intermediary status and the video’s purported revenue generation. The upcoming hearings will be closely watched by legal experts and the tech industry as they may set a precedent for trademark use in digital media.

Date of Decision: 07 November 2023

PATANJALI AYURVED LTD VS META PLATFORMS INC  & ORS.

[gview file="https://lawyerenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/Del-07-Nov-2023-Patanjali-Ayurvedic-Vs-Meta-Platforms.pdf"]

Latest Legal News