-
by Admin
07 May 2024 2:49 AM
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"]
