Court says earlier restraint order against use of the FABINDIA mark extends to Instagram, Facebook, YouTube, X and similar digital channels; intermediary and registrar removed from case on undertaking to obey future directions.
The Delhi High Court has clarified that its earlier injunction protecting Fabindia’s trademark and trade name “FABINDIA” applies not only to general online use, but also specifically to social media platforms and other digital channels.
Justice A.J. Bhambhani, hearing Fabindia Limited’s application in its trademark and copyright suit, held that the scope and purpose of the court’s order dated 4 December 2023 already covered restraint against use of the plaintiff’s mark on any digital medium. The court made it explicit that the order would apply equally to platforms such as Instagram, Facebook, LinkedIn, YouTube and Twitter/X, as well as any analogous digital channel or handle.
Fabindia had sought an ex parte ad interim injunction to restrain the defendants from infringing its intellectual property rights in relation to the FABINDIA mark on online and social media platforms. Senior counsel for the company argued that the earlier restraint order should be enforced against the proposed defendants and that the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology was declining to take steps to implement it against social media platforms on the mistaken understanding that the order did not specifically mention them.
The court declined to issue notice on the application and instead clarified the earlier order to remove any ambiguity. It recorded that the earlier injunction was intended to restrain use of the mark on all digital media, including social media platforms.
In a separate application, the court allowed deletion of defendant no. 3, a payment aggregator, from the array of parties. The defendant argued that it functioned as an intermediary and was entitled to safe harbour protection under Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India. The court noted that no substantive relief had been sought against the defendant and accepted its undertaking to comply with any future directions of the court.
Similarly, defendant no. 9, Go Daddy LLC, a domain name registrar, was also deleted from the array of parties. The registrar informed the court that it had already complied with directions to disclose registrant details and basic subscriber information, and also undertook to remain bound by any further orders passed in the case. The court accepted this position and removed it from the proceedings.
The matter has now been listed for further hearing on 1 December 2026, with the court directing Fabindia to file an amended memo of parties before the next date. The plaintiff has also sought time to move an application for summary judgment.
Bottom Line :
Intellectual Property - Trade mark infringement on digital and social media platforms - Earlier restraint order against use of plaintiff's mark 'FABINDIA' clarified to extend to all online and social media platforms including Instagram, Facebook, LinkedIn, YouTube and Twitter/X - Intermediary/payment aggregator and domain name registrar deleted from array of parties where no substantive relief was claimed against them, subject to their undertaking to comply with future court directions.
Statutory provision(s): Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2, Section 151 CPC, Order I Rule 10(2) CPC, Section 79 Information Technology Act, 2000
Fabindia Limited v. Ashok Kumar/John Doe, (Delhi) : Law Finder Doc id # 2984460
