Dispute Over Ownership Of Facebook Group Not A Trademark Dispute: Bombay High Court

Justice Nitin W Sambre set aside Civil Court’s decision that it did not have jurisdiction over the dispute of ownership of the Facebook Group called The Himalayan Club.

“the conclusion drawn by the Court below that the dispute involved in the suit pertains to the intellectual property and as such, the Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit, cannot be accepted. The Court below has misguided itself thereby inferring that the ownership of Facebook Group amounts to trademark and as such, the dispute pertains to the intellectual property”, the court held.

The Himalayan Club (appellant) filed a suit against one Kanwar B. Singh in the Civil Court seeking declaration that the disputed Facebook Group is owned by it and it has the exclusive rights to manage the group. It sought mandatory injunction against one to the defendants directing them to hand over the control of the Facebook group to the club.

The appellant contended that it has various publications and libraries. The respondent was a member of the management committee of the club and had the job of helping the club with the website, internet-based chat groups, and social media outreach. The Facebook group named The Himalayan Club was created by him as part of his role in the club.

According to the appellant, the respondent, as a creator administrator of the group, started claiming that the Club has no connection with the Facebook group and usurped control of the group.

The Civil Court held that the Facebook Group is a trademark and hence it has no jurisdiction over the dispute as per Section 2(3A) of the Bombay Civil Court Act, 1948. Hence the present appeal.

Section 2(3A) defines an intellectual property dispute. Further, section 3 of the Act excludes IP disputes from Civil Court’s jurisdiction.

Advocate Ashish Kamat for the appellant submitted that Civil Court order is against the Order VII Rule 10 of the CPC. Further Section 3 of the Trademark Act is not applicable in this case as the dispute is not in relation to trademark.

Advocate Jacob Kadantot for the respondent supported the Civil Court’s decision and contended that the appellant can always approach the court having competent jurisdiction.

The court noted that the appellant has not claimed the Facebook Group to be a registered trademark that the respondent infringed. Rather, it sought declaration that that it is the owner of the Facebook Group.

The court said that the Facebook Group is a website and a social media platform for members to exchange ideas etc. and hence it is not a trademark or a copyright.

“The Facebook Group which is claimed to be of the appellant is a website, internet based social media platform which provides for members to exchange views, ideas and to post experiences, messages, photographs etc.. As such, it cannot be said that the Facebook platform is a trademark or a copyright. The appellant is seeking recovery and restoration of the same”, the court held.

Therefore, the court held that the Civil Court’s conclusion was misguided and cannot be accepted.

The court concluded that the Civil Court had the jurisdiction in this matter and quashed the impugned order.

“it has to be held that the Court was having jurisdiction and is in error in recording a finding that the suit pertains to the claim of ownership of trademark and as such, is a suit pertaining to an intellectual property”, said the court.

Case no. – Appeal From Order No. 809 of 2022

Case Title – The Himalayan Club v. Kanwar B. Singh & Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 168