Caught bread-handed? Delhi High Court restrains Bangalore pastry shop 'Facebake' from using Facebook trademark

The Delhi High Court has permanently restrained a Bangalore-based confectionary shop from using 'Facebake','Facecake' or any other name which is deceptively similar to that of Facebook [Meta Platforms Inc v. Noufel Malol & Anr]..In a trademark infringement suit filed by Facebook's parent company, Meta, Justice Navin Chawla awarded nominal damages worth ₹50,000 in favour of the social media giant, and ordered that the costs of the present suit shall also be borne by the defendants.Permanently restraining the confectionary shop from using Meta's trademarks, the Court held,"The defendants, its directors, proprietors, subsidiaries, affiliates, franchisees, officers, servants, agents, distributors, representatives and anyone acting for or on its behalf are permanently restrained from using the 'Facebake' marks; the domain name www.facebake.in; the email ids facebake.mail@gmail.com; facebake649@gmail.com; the mark 'Facecake'; the Facebook marks, the Facebook Visual Presentation, and any other "Facebook" formative trade marks of the plaintiff, or any other mark deceptively similar thereto in relation to products and services related to confectionary items, or any other goods or services, in any manner, including on social media.".The Court also directed the owner of the Bangalore-based shop to deliver all finished and unfinished materials, including locks, signage, cards, stationery, accessories, packaging, labels and other material bearing the 'Facebake' marks or any other deceptively similar mark to Meta for the purpose of erasure or destruction.While comparing the marks of Meta and of the confectionary store, the Court noted,"The overall visual representation adopted by the defendants, clearly depicts the mala fide intent of the defendants in obtaining unfair advantage by the use of the mark similar to that of the plaintiff and also leads to the dilution of the mark of the plaintiff. It can lead to an unwary consumer being at least interested in taking note of the defendants as having some kind of connection with the plaintiff."It was further noted that the defendants' mala fide intent was also evident from the fact that upon knowledge of the ad-interim injunction earlier passed by the Court, they had changed the mark from 'Facebake' to 'Facecake'.The Court also added that the shop owners chose not to appear to defend the suit, in spite of service..The Court had, in November 2020, passed an interim order in favour of Meta. Then, in January 2021, the Court confirmed this order on account of the non-appearance of the shop owners. Subsequently, through an application filed by Meta, the Court was apprised of the fact that despite the above orders being passed, the confectionary shop owners went ahead and incorporated a company by the name of Ehrlich Foods and Beverages Pvt. Ltd, which had preferred a trademark application seeking the registration of the deceptively similar 'Facecake' mark on March 30, 2021..Advocates Pravin Anand, Vaishali Mittal, Siddhant Chamola and Shivang Sharma appeared for the plaintiff..[Read Order]