The Bombay High Court allowed an appeal filed against the order dated 3rd August 2022 passed by the City Civil Court which gave the ruling on the preliminary issue, holding that the suit of the appellant/plaintiff is not maintainable as the Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit. The Court observed that it cannot be said that the Facebook platform is a trademark or copyright.
Brief Facts:
The appellant/plaintiff initiated a suit seeking a declaration that the disputed Facebook Group is owned by and the property of the plaintiff.
The appellant claims that the group was founded on 17th February 1928 and enjoys a wide membership with a presence in various countries across the globe. According to the plaintiff, the Facebook Group was created by defendant No.1 on instructions and directions of the plaintiff accordingly defendant No.1 was an “E-Group Moderator”. According to the plaintiff, defendant No.1 appointed Administrators as were authorized under the delegation to that effect. It is further claimed that the position of defendant No.1 became “creator administrator”. Taking undue advantage of the said position, defendant No.1 started claiming that the plaintiff has no connection with the aforesaid Facebook Group and he tried to garner/usurp the control of the said Facebook Group and unilaterally removed various administrators without any such authority or direction from the plaintiff.
After the plaintiff filed a suit, a summons was served on defendant No.1 who filed his written statement and claimed that since the Facebook Group Account is an intellectual property, the Court has no jurisdiction to try and decide the suit.
The Trial Court held that since the dispute pertains to ownership of Facebook Group which is a trademark defined as referred in Section 2(1)(m) of the Trade Marks Act, the said comes within the ambit of intellectual property and the Court has no jurisdiction.
Contentions of the Appellant:
The Learned Counsel for the Appellant argued that the Court below committed an error apparent on the face of the record giving a ruling that it lacks jurisdiction. According to him, the dispute was never in relation to the trademark, as the trademark holder in the case under the Trade Marks Act asserts the deceptive similarity. Further, he submitted that the suit is based on the Facebook Group being the property of the appellant/plaintiff and misuse of the same by respondent No.1. In such an eventuality, the suit has to be held to be maintainable.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The Learned Counsel for the Respondent argued that the Court below having regard to the definition of “trademark”, intellectual property was justified in holding that the suit is barred under Section 2(3A) of the Bombay Civil Court Act, 1948.
Observations of the Court
The Court noted that the Facebook Group is in no way claimed to be a registered trademark of the plaintiff which defendant No.1 has infringed. Rather, the plaintiff has sought a declaration that he is the owner of the Facebook Group, and based on the same, ancillary reliefs are claimed. The claiming of the relief is also based on the pleadings that defendant No.1 by misusing his position is trying to change the situation viz. ownership of the Facebook Group by taking undue advantage of his position as that of “moderator” of the Facebook Group.
Further, the Court observed that the Facebook Group which is claimed to be of the appellant is a website, an internet-based social media platform that provides for members to exchange views and ideas, and to post experiences, messages, photographs, etc. As such, it cannot be said that the Facebook platform is a trademark or copyright. Also, it cannot be said that the recovery and restoration of Facebook Group can be termed to be a dispute relating to the trademark.
The decision of the Court:
The Bombay High Court, allowing the appeal, held that the Court below has committed an error in invoking provisions of Clause (3A) of Section 2 of the Bombay City Civil Court Act, 1948, and hence, the impugned order dated 3rd August 2022 is hereby quashed and set aside.
Case Title: The Himalayan Club vs Kanwar B. Singh & Ors.
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Nitin W. Sambre
Case no.: APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.809 OF 2022
Advocate for the Appellant: Mr. Ashish Kamat
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. Jacob Kadantot and Mr. Soli Cooper
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
