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

144
0
Share:
fir bail transport pay Fees Public T20 World Cup v Pay Video School company Human Rape Sexual Taxable Evidence Tax Statement property students Policy Bail Bail cheques Police Accident Service Claim Trademark Cognizance smuggling NI Eviction Agreement Minister Acid spa Old Delhi HC MBBS DivorceLand Child Evidence Bail Senior Marriage Maintenance Application Property Exam Evidence Divorce doctrine pocso award Medical public Income Tax constable National bailUniversity Property Recovery Evidence Adopted v Payment territorial corporation Bail liability police bank Constitutionality child nature claim domestic Limitation bsnl traffic property railway legal landlords Relationship Citizen property Tax custody phonetic predicate Acquisition forum public asset tax wire eligibility violence physical financial second trademark person Corpus Director TDS policy entertainment parody games recovery 14 tax judiciary claims court bar 34 Raps advertisement employees salary mother rape decisions students 138 divorce bail CBI fir evidence evidence eviction drc lower doctors legal investigation civil copyright

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.

Download Judgment

Share: