From ‘Facebake’ to ‘Buncake’: Why Delhi High Court rebuked Meta in trademark battle with Bengaluru bakery

“This court finds that it was the decree holder who exhibited a lack of initiative in accepting the monies awarded under the decree,” the court said.

The high court noted that the said company, which is operating with 53 outlets in Bengaluru, had repeatedly requested Meta to furnish the bank account details for providing the amount awarded as per the court order, but Meta failed to provide the same until September this year and found it was Meta itself that exhibited a lack of initiative in accepting the monies awarded under the 2022 order.

The bakery company, the court noted, is complying with the 2022 permanent injunction order and has taken appropriate steps in that regard.

The court, in its December 24 order, also stated that this injunction is “perpetual” in nature and if the said company violates the order, Meta would be at liberty to approach the court for enforcement of the permanent injunction.

‘No wilful disobedience’

The high court noted that Meta has also invoked the contempt jurisdiction in the matter.

Justice Arora, however, considered the whole case, including the substantial compliance of the said company with the permanent injunction order, the absence of any wilful or deliberate disobedience and found that the said reliefs sought by Meta were “misconceived” and are not liable to be “adjudicated upon or granted”. ​

Arguments

One of the counsels, appearing for Meta, advocate J V Abhay, argued that the said company continued to violate the court’s order directions by using infringing marks such as ‘FACEBAKE’ and ‘FACECAKE’, operating retail outlets, domains, email addresses, and listings on online and food-delivery platforms, and by failing to pay the damages and costs awarded.

Abhay also argued that the bakery company undertook to pay the awarded amount, but the amount was remitted only in September, “more than three years” after the order and only after “repeated execution proceedings and directions of this court”.

The counsel also sought costs of the execution proceedings and restitutionary compensation, highlighting the said company’s prolonged post-decree infringement, false affidavits, and unjust enrichment from continued misuse of Meta’s well-known marks.

On the contrary, the dircetor’s representative, advocate Haneesh Krishnan, argued that they have the highest regard for the orders and judgment of this court and have never acted in violation pointing that they run 53 shops on a franchise basis in and around Bengaluru, Karnataka, and have changed the name of their outlets from ‘FACEBAKE / FACECAKE’ to ‘BUNCAKE’ in compliance with the injunction.