Delhi High Court: While hearing an execution petition filed by Meta Platforms in the Facebook trade mark case, alleging willful non-compliance and conscious disobedience of a decree of permanent injunction, the Single Judge Bench of Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, J, held that the judgment debtors had substantially complied with the said decree by removing the marks deceptively similar to Meta’s trade mark ‘FACEBOOK’. The Court further held that in the absence of any willful disobedience and due to lack of prior notice of decree to the judgment debtor before initiation of proceedings, no additional damages or costs could be claimed.
Background of the Facebook Trade Mark Case
The execution petition arose from a decree dated 6-7-2022 passed in Meta Platforms Inc. v. Noufel Malol & Anr., whereby the Delhi High Court granted a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from using the marks ‘FACEBAKE’, ‘FACECAKE’ or any deceptively similar mark to ‘FACEBOOK’, along with related domain names and email IDs. The Court had also awarded nominal damages of Rs. 50,000 and costs, subsequently quantified at Rs. 2,00,628.20.
The decree holder had alleged that despite the decree, the judgment debtors had continued to infringe Meta’s well-known trademark by operating outlets, websites and online listings using infringing marks. It was contended that the judgment debtors had acted in a contumacious manner, delayed compliance, filed false affidavits, and unjustly enriched themselves. On this basis, the decree holder had sought execution of the decree, costs of execution proceedings and restitutionary compensation.
The judgment debtors had asserted that they had complied with the decree by renaming all outlets to ‘BUNCAKE’, removing infringing signboards, and undertaking to pay damages and costs. They had further submitted that any residual non-compliance was promptly remedied once pointed out and denied any wilful disobedience of court orders.
Analysis, Law and Decision in Facebook Trade Mark Case
The Court examined the record of execution proceedings and noted that the judgment debtors had taken steps to comply with the decree by renaming outlets, removing infringing signage, and addressing issues identified by the decree holder’s investigator. The Court recorded that the decree holder had acknowledged removal of the infringing marks at the identified outlets and that the permanent injunction stood substantially complied with.
On the issue of delayed payment of damages and costs, the Court found that although remittance was made in September 2025, the judgment debtors had repeatedly sought bank details from the decree holder since May 2025. The Court held that the delay could not be attributed solely to the judgment debtors, as the decree holder had failed to promptly provide payment details.
The Court rejected the decree holder’s prayer for restitutionary damages and additional costs. It observed that the plea was raised belatedly, after orders had been reserved, and that the execution court could not enlarge the scope of the original decree. The Court further held that in the absence of wilful or deliberate disobedience, execution proceedings could not be converted into a forum for awarding fresh compensation or punitive relief.
Significantly, the Court noted that the decree dated 6-7-2022 was passed ex parte and that no notice had been issued by the decree holder between 2022 and 2024 calling upon the judgment debtors to comply. There was also no material to show that the judgment debtors were aware of the decree prior to the initiation of execution proceedings. In these circumstances, the Court found no justification for imposing further costs or invoking contempt jurisdiction.
The Court held that the decree insofar as damages and costs was satisfied and that the permanent injunction in the Facebook trade mark case had been substantially complied with. The prayer for restitutionary compensation and additional costs was rejected. The Court further clarified that the injunction being perpetual, the decree holder would be at liberty to approach the Court in the event of any future violation, subject to issuance of prior notice. Accordingly, the execution petition was disposed of.
[Meta Platforms Inc. v. Noufelmalol, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 9671, decided on 24-12-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Decree Holder: J.V. Abhay, Dhruv Grover, Advocates
For the Judgement Debtors: Haneesh Krishnan, Advocate