E-Paper
Bengaluru pastry shop branded itself like ‘Facebook’. Here's what Delhi high court did
The Delhi high court said that there is some distinction between the marks of the petitioner Meta and the defendant, but the overall visual representation adopted by the latter clearly depicts the mala fide intent in obtaining unfair advantage by the use of the mark similar to that of the plaintiff.
The Delhi high court has permanently restrained the owner of a Bengaluru confectionary shop under the name ‘Facebake’ from using any mark deceptively similar to that of social media giant Meta's brand ‘Facebook’ mark, PTI reported.
On a lawsuit filed by Meta, Justice Navin Chawla said Facebook is a well-known trademark in the country and the visual representation adopted by Noufel Malol, the owner of confectionary firm Facebake, depicted a mala fide intent in obtaining unfair advantage, the agency reported.
"The user of a mark similar to ‘Facebook’ can lead to an unwary customer being at least interested in taking note of the defendant as having some kind of connection with the plaintiff and the mala fide of intent of the defendant was also evident from the fact that after an interim injunction was passed against the use of 'Facebake', the defendant changed the mark to 'Facecake' and chose not to defend the suit," the judge noted.
The court permanently restrained the defendant, its subsidiaries, affiliates as well as anyone acting for or on its behalf from using the 'Facebake' marks, the domain name and email address containing the word 'Facebake' , the mark 'Facecake', Facebook's visual presentation and any other deceptively similar mark concerning its products and services.
The court also awarded damages of 50,000 to the petitioner and against the defendant.
"It cannot seriously be disputed that the marks of the plaintiff are well-known in India. Its user base and its reach are evident from the documents that have been filed by the plaintiff. The plaintiff also has obtained registrations of its marks for various classes of goods and the use of a similar mark without due cause would certainly amount to unfair competition, which is detrimental to the distinct character and reputation of the plaintiff's 'Facebook' marks," the court said.
