The Delhi High Court in the case Starbucks Corporation and Anr. v. National Internet Exchange of India and Ors. observed and has directed the Google to suspend URLs of various Google Forms inviting general public to apply for ‘Starbucks Franchise.’ The Starbucks does not work on a franchise model in India.
The bench headed by Justice Anish Dayal in the case observed and has stated that Starbucks, the multinational chain of coffeehouses, will be at liberty to file an affidavit listing out other similar URLs of Google Forms after which Google may suspend the same.
The court stated that the defendant No. 4 i.e., the Google for reason whatsoever, has a reservation to any particular URL, they will be at liberty to respond to the plaintiffs in that regard and who will turn will be at liberty to approach this Court for further adjudication and relief.
The bench of Justice Dayal was dealing with the suit filed by Starbucks against the unknown ‘john doe’ entities holding themselves out to be its franchisees, without any authorisation in that regard.
The court in the case observed and has passed an interim injunction in favour of Starbucks.
Further, an application was also filed seeking to restrain various imposters impersonating as ‘Starbucks Franchise’.
The court stated that the importers were doing so through Google Forms which had the heading as ‘StarBucks franchise’ and states that one can apply on the form to get more information about taking franchise of Starbucks.
The court while considering the facts and circumstances of the case stated that the plaintiff would be entitled to the relief they seek in this application, on account of not only that these Google Forms are being posted by imposters in order to elicit information relating to Starbucks franchise as the same does not exist in India as well as seeking private information and data from the general public, which cannot be countenanced.
The counsel, Advocate Ms. Rima Majumdar and Advocate Ms. Shilpi Sinha appeared for the Plaintiff.
The counsel, Ms. Chhavi Arora, Adv. for D-1; Mr. Vaibhav Gaggar, SPC with Mr. Kartikeya Asthana, GP with Mrs. Monika Lakhanpal Gaggar, Ms. Vasudata, Ms. Shefali Munde and Mr. Dhruv Mehta, Advs. for D-2; Mr. Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar, CGSC, Mr. Srish Kumar Mishra, Mr. Alexander Mathai Paikaday and Mr. Krishnan V., Advs. for MEITY & DOT. Mr. Neel Mason, Mr. Vihan Dang, Mr. Ujjawal Bhargava and Ms. Pragya Jain, Advs. for D-4 represented the defendants.
