Victim Has Locus To Request Court To Summon Witnesses Under Section 311 CrPC In State Prosecution: Allahabad High Court Order 2 Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Ground to Reject a Plaint: Supreme Court Draws Crucial Distinction Between Bar to Sue and Bar by Law No Right to Lawyer Before Advisory Board in Preventive Detention — Unless Government Appears Through Legal Practitioner: Supreme Court Wife's Dowry Statement Cannot Be Used to Prosecute Her for 'Giving' Dowry: Supreme Court Upholds Section 7(3) Shield Husband's Loan Repayments Cannot Reduce Wife's Maintenance: Supreme Court Raises Amount to ₹25,000 From ₹15,000 Prisoners Don't Surrender Their Rights at the Prison Gate: Supreme Court Issues Binding SOP to End Delays in Legal Aid Appeals A Judgment Must Be a Self-Contained Document Even When Defendant Never Appears: Supreme Court on Ex Parte Decrees Court Cannot Dismiss Ex Parte Suit on Unpleaded, Unframed Issue: Supreme Court Sets Aside Specific Performance Decree Denied on Title Erroneous High Court Observations Cannot Be Used to Stake Property Claims: Supreme Court Steps In to Prevent Misuse of Judicial Observations No Criminal Proceedings Would Have Been Initiated Had Financial Settlement Succeeded: Supreme Court Grants Anticipatory Bail In Rape Case Directors Cannot Escape Pollution Law Prosecution by Claiming Ignorance: Allahabad High Court Refuses to Quash Summons Against Company Directors Order 7 Rule 11 CPC | Court Cannot Peek Into Defence While Rejecting Plaint: Delhi High Court Death 3½ Months After Accident Doesn't Break Causal Link If Doctors Testify Injuries Could Cause Death: Andhra Pradesh High Court LLB Intern Posed as Supreme Court Advocate, Used Fake Bar Council Card and Police Station Seals to Defraud Victims of Rs. 80 Lakhs: Gujarat High Court Rejects Anticipatory Bail Husband Who Travels to Wife's City on Leave, Cohabits With Her, Then Claims She 'Never Lived With Him' Cannot Prove Cruelty: Jharkhand High Court Liquor Licence Is a State Privilege, Not a Citizen's Right — No Vested Right of Renewal Survives a Change in Rules: Karnataka High Court Sets Aside Stay on E-Auction Policy Court Holiday Cannot Save Prosecution From Default Bail: MP High Court No Search At Your Premises, No Incriminating Document, No Case: Rajasthan HC Quashes Rs. 18 Crore Tax Assessment Under Section 153C Limitation Act | Litigant Cannot Be Punished For Court's Own Docket Load: J&K High Court

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