Details Related to Judgement on Facebook v/s Facebake and Facecake

Judgement on Facebook

Judgement on Facebook

The recent case related to trademark infringement was seen as the Delhi High Court permanently restrained a Bengaluru-based cake shop from using the name “Facebake” or “Facecake”, or in fact any other Facebook trademark, after Meta Platforms, which owns Facebook, went to court. In an order from a court in a suit filed by Meta Platforms, which owns Facebook, the Delhi High Court has permanently restrained the owner of a Bangalore-based cake shop from using the name ‘Facebake’ or ‘Facecake’ or any other Facebook trademarks for its business or product and services.

Judgement on Facebook
Source: Facebook

Cases like this are seen in the past few years and this is not unlikely to be the last. As, a dozen flea markets, Delhi chor bazaar is the one and the most famous where there is selling of shoes, watches, clothes, etc named after world-renowned brands. Popular Coffee chains, mineral water brands, fast-moving consumer goods (FMCG) companies, and many others have had to grapple with violations of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR).

  • Objection Notice
  • We will assess the requirement for objection
  • Affidavit Preparation and industry-specific reply
  • End-to-End Discussion

Trademark under Indian law is a mark that is capable of being represented graphically and which is capable of distinguishing the goods or services of one person from those of others and may include the shape of goods, their packaging, and a combination of colors.

So, anyone trying to deceptively use a brand that is similar to another popular brand (e.g. in font, format, color scheme, etc.) is an infringer or is called a violation of the trademark act and also be called trademark infringement. Also “in addition to the names which are similar in sound, ‘Facebake’ was also using the similar kind of font and the blue-on-white color scheme popularised by Facebook,” says Anupam Shukla, partner at Mumbai- based Pioneer Legal.

Anupam Shukla
Source: Linkedin

So, when can we say that this is a matter of Infringement?

It basically depends on how well-known a mark is. Other things such as the brand’s international presence, application, and reputation built during the time also determine if one is entitled to protect those marks. In cases like these, the conduct of the alleged violator has to be taken into account. The look and feel of the cake shop were quite similar, so it comes in the ambit of unfair advertising. The shop was riding on Facebook’s reputation, diluting its marks.

Why are we calling this a case of Trademark Infringement?

The mala fide intent of the defendants is evident from the fact that upon the knowledge of the ad-interim injunction passed by this Court, the defendants changed the mark from ‘Facebake’ to ‘Facecake’ thereby changing only one alphabet, however, chose not to appear before this Court to defend the suit in spite of service,” reads the order. Meta Platforms 2020 had filed a suit against Noufel Malol, the owner of ‘Facebake’, for a permanent injunction to restrain him from using the mark ‘Facebake’, the website

‘’ and related email ids. The court, in November 2020, passed an interim order in favor of Meta and confirmed the order in January 2021, since no one appeared on behalf of the defendants. Meta through an application letter apprised the court that Malol has incorporated a company by the name of ‘Ehrlich Foods and Beverages Pvt Ltd’ which has preferred a trademark application for registration of a deceptively-similar mark ‘Facecake’. Since no one appeared for Malol or the company, the court proceeded ex-parte in the case.

The statement was given by Justice Navin Chawla

Justice Navin Chawla said the shop owner will deliver all finished and unfinished materials, including locks, signage, cards, stationary, accessories, packaging, labels, and other material bearing the ‘Facebake’ marks or any mark deceptively similar to Facebook, to Meta for the purpose of erasure or destruction.

Justice Navin Chawla given - Judgement on Facebook

The court also awarded nominal damages of Rs 50,000 in favor of Meta and asked the shop owner to pay the cost of the suit to the social media giant. It said that though there is some distinction between the marks of Meta and the defendant, the overall visual representation adopted by the defendant clearly depicts “the mala fide intent” in obtaining an unfair advantage by the use of marks similar to that of Meta.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *