Factual Background 

In the instant matter at hand Tata Play Ltd. v. LinkedIn Corporation, The plaintiff filed a lawsuit in an attempt to have the defendants permanently barred from enabling any user of their platform to utilise the plaintiff’s trade mark TATA SKY. The lawsuit claimed that multiple people who weren’t her employees had fabricated LinkedIn accounts claiming to work for her. It was additionally alleged that several defendants were improperly utilising the term TATA SKY in their platform profile descriptions without the plaintiff’s knowledge, consent, or licence. In particular, the defendants misrepresented themselves as merchants of the plaintiff on their profiles while not being authorised retail dealers of the plaintiff’s merchandise.

Analysis of Court Order 

To dispose of the case with an effective framework in place for the plaintiff, the Delhi High Court’s Single Judge Bench ordered that LinkedIn place on record the information about the Rules that apply to persons who create LinkedIn profiles, as well as the Grievance Officers. According to LinkedIn’s guidelines, the proliferation of numerous false profiles would make it very difficult for the plaintiff to approach the Court on every occasion.

According to a previous judgement from this court, the plaintiff is allowed to visit LinkedIn’s grievance officer and provide a list of all bogus profiles so that the proper action may be done. The plaintiff’s attorney said that the plaintiff had spoken with the grievance officer and the necessary steps had been taken, but the attorney also pleaded for the issuance of a dynamic injunction in this particular situation. The Court stated that it would be exceedingly difficult for the plaintiff to attend the Court regularly and that it would be best to dismiss the case without the plaintiff having an adequate legal defence. On November 28, 2023, the matter would be listed again.

CASE NAME – Tata Play Ltd. v. LinkedIn Corporation, CS (COMM) 81 of 2020