{"id":372080,"date":"2026-01-08T18:00:57","date_gmt":"2026-01-08T12:30:57","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=372080"},"modified":"2026-01-09T18:09:24","modified_gmt":"2026-01-09T12:39:24","slug":"delhi-hc-rejects-metas-claim-for-extra-damages-in-facebook-trade-mark-dispute","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/01\/08\/delhi-hc-rejects-metas-claim-for-extra-damages-in-facebook-trade-mark-dispute\/","title":{"rendered":"‘No willful disobedience or non-compliance’: Delhi HC rejects Meta’s claim for additional damages in Facebake v. Facebook trade mark case"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Delhi High Court:<\/span> 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.<\/p>\n

Background of the Facebook Trade Mark Case<\/h3>\n

The execution petition arose from a decree dated 6-7-2022 passed in Meta Platforms Inc. v. Noufel Malol & Anr.<\/span>, 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.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

Analysis, Law and Decision in Facebook Trade Mark Case<\/h3>\n

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.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

[Meta Platforms Inc. v. Noufelmalol, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 9671<\/a>, decided on 24-12-2025<\/span>]<\/p>\n\n

Advocates who appeared in this case:<\/p>\n

For the Decree Holder:<\/span> J.V. Abhay, Dhruv Grover, Advocates<\/p>\n

For the Judgement Debtors:<\/span> Haneesh Krishnan, Advocate<\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

“Where judgment debtors have substantially complied with a permanent injunction and no prior notice of breach was issued, execution proceedings cannot be used to seek additional compensation.”<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":67539,"featured_media":372099,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,10],"tags":[96480,2543,44760,50196,96478,68839,96479,96481],"class_list":["post-372080","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-highcourts","tag-additional-damages-in-trademark-cases","tag-Delhi_High_Court","tag-execution-petition","tag-facebake","tag-facebook-trade-mark-case","tag-justice-manmeet-pritam-singh-arora","tag-permanent-injunction-compliance","tag-substantial-compliance-trademark-decree"],"yoast_head":"\nDel HC rejects Meta's claim for extra damages in Facebook trade mark dispute | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"'No willful disobedience or non-compliance': Delhi HC rejects Meta's claim for additional damages in Facebake v. Facebook trade mark case\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/01\/08\/delhi-hc-rejects-metas-claim-for-extra-damages-in-facebook-trade-mark-dispute\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"'No willful disobedience or non-compliance': Delhi HC rejects Meta's claim for additional damages in Facebake v. Facebook trade mark case\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"'No willful disobedience or non-compliance': Delhi HC rejects Meta's claim for additional damages in Facebake v. Facebook trade mark case\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/01\/08\/delhi-hc-rejects-metas-claim-for-extra-damages-in-facebook-trade-mark-dispute\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2026-01-08T12:30:57+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2026-01-09T12:39:24+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/Facebook-trade-mark-case.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"886\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"590\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Prarthana Gupta\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:title\" content=\"'No willful disobedience or non-compliance': Delhi HC rejects Meta's claim for additional damages in Facebake v. Facebook trade mark case\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Prarthana Gupta\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"4 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/01\/08\/delhi-hc-rejects-metas-claim-for-extra-damages-in-facebook-trade-mark-dispute\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/01\/08\/delhi-hc-rejects-metas-claim-for-extra-damages-in-facebook-trade-mark-dispute\/\",\"name\":\"Del HC rejects Meta's claim for extra damages in Facebook trade mark dispute | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/01\/08\/delhi-hc-rejects-metas-claim-for-extra-damages-in-facebook-trade-mark-dispute\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/01\/08\/delhi-hc-rejects-metas-claim-for-extra-damages-in-facebook-trade-mark-dispute\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/Facebook-trade-mark-case.webp\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-01-08T12:30:57+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-01-09T12:39:24+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/ffe9a3c7eae30c883786fd440bcab382\"},\"description\":\"'No willful disobedience or non-compliance': Delhi HC rejects Meta's claim for additional damages in Facebake v. Facebook trade mark case\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/01\/08\/delhi-hc-rejects-metas-claim-for-extra-damages-in-facebook-trade-mark-dispute\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/01\/08\/delhi-hc-rejects-metas-claim-for-extra-damages-in-facebook-trade-mark-dispute\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/01\/08\/delhi-hc-rejects-metas-claim-for-extra-damages-in-facebook-trade-mark-dispute\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/Facebook-trade-mark-case.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/Facebook-trade-mark-case.webp\",\"width\":886,\"height\":590,\"caption\":\"Facebook trade mark case\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/01\/08\/delhi-hc-rejects-metas-claim-for-extra-damages-in-facebook-trade-mark-dispute\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"‘No willful disobedience or non-compliance’: Delhi HC rejects Meta’s claim for additional damages in Facebake v. Facebook trade mark case\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/ffe9a3c7eae30c883786fd440bcab382\",\"name\":\"Prarthana Gupta\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/cd5380f62642d388922bf1a84a49cf7fe9acb150b43abdb5e1c20c15c40a94a9?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/cd5380f62642d388922bf1a84a49cf7fe9acb150b43abdb5e1c20c15c40a94a9?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Prarthana Gupta\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/prarthana\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Del HC rejects Meta's claim for extra damages in Facebook trade mark dispute | SCC Times","description":"'No willful disobedience or non-compliance': Delhi HC rejects Meta's claim for additional damages in Facebake v. Facebook trade mark case","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/01\/08\/delhi-hc-rejects-metas-claim-for-extra-damages-in-facebook-trade-mark-dispute\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"'No willful disobedience or non-compliance': Delhi HC rejects Meta's claim for additional damages in Facebake v. Facebook trade mark case","og_description":"'No willful disobedience or non-compliance': Delhi HC rejects Meta's claim for additional damages in Facebake v. Facebook trade mark case","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/01\/08\/delhi-hc-rejects-metas-claim-for-extra-damages-in-facebook-trade-mark-dispute\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2026-01-08T12:30:57+00:00","article_modified_time":"2026-01-09T12:39:24+00:00","og_image":[{"width":886,"height":590,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/Facebook-trade-mark-case.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Prarthana Gupta","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_title":"'No willful disobedience or non-compliance': Delhi HC rejects Meta's claim for additional damages in Facebake v. Facebook trade mark case","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Prarthana Gupta","Est. reading time":"4 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/01\/08\/delhi-hc-rejects-metas-claim-for-extra-damages-in-facebook-trade-mark-dispute\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/01\/08\/delhi-hc-rejects-metas-claim-for-extra-damages-in-facebook-trade-mark-dispute\/","name":"Del HC rejects Meta's claim for extra damages in Facebook trade mark dispute | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/01\/08\/delhi-hc-rejects-metas-claim-for-extra-damages-in-facebook-trade-mark-dispute\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/01\/08\/delhi-hc-rejects-metas-claim-for-extra-damages-in-facebook-trade-mark-dispute\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/Facebook-trade-mark-case.webp","datePublished":"2026-01-08T12:30:57+00:00","dateModified":"2026-01-09T12:39:24+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/ffe9a3c7eae30c883786fd440bcab382"},"description":"'No willful disobedience or non-compliance': Delhi HC rejects Meta's claim for additional damages in Facebake v. Facebook trade mark case","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/01\/08\/delhi-hc-rejects-metas-claim-for-extra-damages-in-facebook-trade-mark-dispute\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/01\/08\/delhi-hc-rejects-metas-claim-for-extra-damages-in-facebook-trade-mark-dispute\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/01\/08\/delhi-hc-rejects-metas-claim-for-extra-damages-in-facebook-trade-mark-dispute\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/Facebook-trade-mark-case.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/Facebook-trade-mark-case.webp","width":886,"height":590,"caption":"Facebook trade mark case"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/01\/08\/delhi-hc-rejects-metas-claim-for-extra-damages-in-facebook-trade-mark-dispute\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"‘No willful disobedience or non-compliance’: Delhi HC rejects Meta’s claim for additional damages in Facebake v. Facebook trade mark case"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/ffe9a3c7eae30c883786fd440bcab382","name":"Prarthana Gupta","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/cd5380f62642d388922bf1a84a49cf7fe9acb150b43abdb5e1c20c15c40a94a9?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/cd5380f62642d388922bf1a84a49cf7fe9acb150b43abdb5e1c20c15c40a94a9?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Prarthana Gupta"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/prarthana\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/Facebook-trade-mark-case.webp","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":287318,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/03\/20\/delhi-high-court-sentences-an-advocate-enrolled-under-delhi-bar-council-for-willful-non-compliance-with-court-order-carrying-business-of-paying-guest-accomodation-in-delhi-legal-news-research-awarenes\/","url_meta":{"origin":372080,"position":0},"title":"[Contempt of Court] Advocate under Delhi Bar Council carrying on the business of PG accommodation; Delhi High Court sentences for willful non-compliance of its order","author":"Arunima","date":"March 20, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"Delhi High Court observed that the respondent is a law graduate enrolled with the State Bar Council and despite being aware of the binding nature of the orders of the Court has shown scant regard for the legal process.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Delhi High Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/02\/MicrosoftTeams-image-472.png?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/02\/MicrosoftTeams-image-472.png?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/02\/MicrosoftTeams-image-472.png?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/02\/MicrosoftTeams-image-472.png?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":270052,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/07\/13\/delhi-high-court-grants-permanent-injunction-against-facebake-or-facecake-from-using-the-well-known-trademark-facebook\/","url_meta":{"origin":372080,"position":1},"title":"Delhi High Court grants permanent injunction against Facebake or Facecake from using the well known trademark Facebook","author":"Editor","date":"July 13, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"\u00a0 \u00a0 Delhi High Court: Navin Chawla J. restrains Facebake and Facecake based in Bangalore which sells confectionary items like cakes etc. from using a deceptively similar and a \u2018well known trademark' as per Section 2(1)(zg) Trade Marks Act, 1999, Facebook which is a popular social media networking site. Meta\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Delhi High Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/delhi_high_court.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/delhi_high_court.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/delhi_high_court.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/delhi_high_court.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/delhi_high_court.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":272963,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/09\/03\/delhi-high-court-grants-injunction-in-favour-of-vistara-against-using-similar-keychains-tags-similar-marks-damages-compensation-20lakhs-intellectual-property-rights-airlines-trademark-infringementlega\/","url_meta":{"origin":372080,"position":2},"title":"Delhi High Court restrains company selling keychains and baggage tags having VISTARA marks online; Raises security concerns and directs damages of Rs 20 lakh","author":"Editor","date":"September 3, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"\u00a0 \u00a0 Delhi High Court: In a case filed by Tata Sia Airlines (\u2018plaintiff') seeking decree of permanent injunction against company selling keychains and baggage tags bearing the \u2018VISTARA Marks' in the aubergine and gold colour-combination, on a Chinese e-commerce platform, namely AliExpress, by the seller (\u2018defendant'), Navin Chawla J.,\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"VISTARA","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/09\/MicrosoftTeams-image-38-1.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/09\/MicrosoftTeams-image-38-1.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/09\/MicrosoftTeams-image-38-1.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/09\/MicrosoftTeams-image-38-1.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/09\/MicrosoftTeams-image-38-1.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":277715,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/11\/18\/delhi-high-court-awards-rs-20-lakhs-costs-to-louis-vuitton-in-a-trade-mark-infringement-case-against-club-factory\/","url_meta":{"origin":372080,"position":3},"title":"Delhi High Court awards Rs. 20 lakhs costs to Louis Vuitton in a trade mark infringement case against Club Factory","author":"Editor","date":"November 18, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"\u00a0 \u00a0 Delhi High Court: In a case where Club Factory was involved in the sale of various unauthorized\/ counterfeited products, bearing the registered marks of Louis Vuitton, the Single Judge Bench of Prathiba M. Singh, J. awarded costs of Rs. 20 lakhs in favour of Louis Vuitton, though the\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Delhi High Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/delhi_high_court-2.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/delhi_high_court-2.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/delhi_high_court-2.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/delhi_high_court-2.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/delhi_high_court-2.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":325420,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/07\/01\/can-court-pass-orders-for-trademark-infringement-in-execution-petition-dhc-answers-scc-times\/","url_meta":{"origin":372080,"position":4},"title":"Can the Court pass orders for trademark infringement in an execution petition? Delhi HC answers","author":"Editor","date":"July 1, 2024","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cIt is immaterial if the term or directions in a decree is contrary to law. The Executing Court cannot go behind the same, and has to give effect to the decree.\u201d","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Delhi High Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Delhi-High-Court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Delhi-High-Court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Delhi-High-Court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Delhi-High-Court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":235765,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/09\/14\/bom-hc-performing-second-marriage-during-pendency-of-an-appeal-is-a-breach-under-s-15-of-hma-but-would-it-amount-to-civil-contempt-hc-analyses\/","url_meta":{"origin":372080,"position":5},"title":"Bom HC | Performing second marriage during pendency of an appeal is a breach under S. 15 of HMA, but would it amount to civil contempt? HC analyses","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"September 14, 2020","format":false,"excerpt":"Bombay High Court:\u00a0A.S. Kilor, J., held that contravention of the provision of Section 15 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 does not amount to willful disobedience of \u2018other process of a Court\u2019 under the provisions of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971. Willful Disobedience The petitioner sought action under Section\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/372080","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/67539"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=372080"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/372080\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/372099"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=372080"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=372080"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=372080"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}