- Home
- News
- Articles+
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- News
- Articles
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
Trademark Infringement: Delhi HC Restraints a Bakery from Using the Mark 'Facebake' In a Suit Filed By Facebook
Trademark Infringement: Delhi HC Restraints a Bakery from Using the Mark 'Facebake' In a Suit Filed By Facebook The Delhi High Court has restrained a bakery from using the mark 'FACEBAKE' in a trademark infringement suit filed by Facebook. While issuing notice to the Defendant bakery, the Single Bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher noted that if interim relief is not granted, Facebook's legal...
ToRead the Full Story, Subscribe to
Access the exclusive LEGAL ERAStories,Editorial and Expert Opinion
Trademark Infringement: Delhi HC Restraints a Bakery from Using the Mark 'Facebake' In a Suit Filed By Facebook
The Delhi High Court has restrained a bakery from using the mark 'FACEBAKE' in a trademark infringement suit filed by Facebook. While issuing notice to the Defendant bakery, the Single Bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher noted that if interim relief is not granted, Facebook's legal rights and business interests will get impacted.
A civil suit was filed by Facebook against a bakery called Facebake, selling cakes, and articles like watches with the mark 'FACEBAKE.' It was also informed to the court that the bakery is running a website as well, which is called www.facebake.in. Mr Pravin Anand, who appeared for Facebook, argued that the Defendant bakery degraded the Plaintiff's well-known trademark and caused confusion in the minds of the public at large as to the source of its products.
Justice Rajiv Shakdher observed, "Given the fact that the plaintiff's trademark "FACEBOOK" is known world over, the balance of convenience also appears to be in favour of the plaintiff. I am also of the view that if interim relief is not granted, the plaintiff's legal rights and business interests will get impacted."
He further directed that the defendant, his agents and employees are restrained from using the mark "FACEBAKE" or any other mark, which is deceptively similar to the plaintiff's trademark.
The Court further held that the injunction will also operate vis-a-vis the logo(s) represented by the letter 'f'. Furthermore, the defendant was also restrained from operating his website i.e. www.facebake.in. The case is listed for further hearing on January 21, 2021.