Skip to main content

Facebook Allowing Users To ‘Like’ Things Won’t Confer Jurisdiction In The State Where The Webpage Is Viewed

The Delhi High Court has ruled that mere hosting of a webpage on Facebook would not confer jurisdiction in the State where such page is viewed.

“...it is clear that merely hosting a web page on Facebook would not be sufficient to confer jurisdiction on a Court where the defendant does not carry on business. Merely because Facebook is an interactive site and permits the users to offer comments or indicate whether they “like what they see” on the site, would not be sufficient to provide a cause of action for passing off in a jurisdiction where the defendant does not enter into any commercial transaction,” Justice Vibhu Bakhru explained.

The Court was hearing an Application filed by ‘News Nation Gujarat’, praying that the passing off suit filed against it by ‘News Nation Networks Private Limited’ be dismissed as it does not disclose a “clear right to sue”. It had further contended that the Court did not have jurisdiction to entertain the suit.

While the mark ‘News Nation’ is not a registered trademark, the Plaintiff had filed a suit for passing off, alleging that the Applicant’s trade name ‘News Nation Gujarat’ was “causing grave confusion and deception among the public at large and therefore, amounts to passing off, unfair competition and unfair trade practice”. They had now defended their suit inter alia placing reliance on the Facebook page of the Applicants.

During the hearing, the Court noted that the question whether a universal website which can be viewed all over the world confers jurisdiction in the state where it is viewed, has been a subject matter of much debate.

 Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/facebook-allowing-users-like-things-wont-confer-jurisdiction-state-webpage-viewed-delhi-hc-read-judgment/

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more

Flat owner without legal title has consumer rights

In a significant judgment, the South Mumbai Consumer Forum has held that a flat owner legally occupying the flat would be a consumer, even if his title to the flat might be in dispute before a competent court. Thurlow owned a flat in a co-operative society. Appuswami was residing with him. In 1976, Appuswami got married in the same flat, and his wife started residing in the same flat. They had three children, born and brought up in the same flat. After Thurlow expired in 2004, Appuswami approached the High Court for inheritance to Thurlow's estate but expired while the matter was pending. His wife and children were brought on record. Subsequently, the society intervened, contending Appuswami did not have any right to the flat and it should be handed over to the Society. The Appuswami family continued to reside in the flat, and even pay the society's outgoings and maintenance charges. Later, the society stopped collecting maintenance charges from all members, as it earned...
Post a Comment
Read more

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
Post a Comment
Read more