Allowed¶25

Meta Platforms Inc. v. 360 One Wam Limited

Bombay HC19 Jan 2026IA/4899/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Meta Platforms Inc; WhatsApp LLC separate legal entity; modification of ex parte ad-interim order dated 23-06-2025; no plaint allegations of infringement on Facebook or Instagram; WhatsApp group allegations only; 360 One Wam Limited v. John Doe; Bombay High Court Commercial IP Suit; Gauri Godse J; interim application allowed 23-03-2026.

What did the court decide?

Interim Application No. 4899 of 2025 allowed by clarifying that the ex parte ad-interim order dated 23 June 2025 and the prayer in the interim application shall not apply to defendant no.6 (Meta Platforms Inc). ¶25

Meta Platforms Inc. vs 360 One Wam Limited — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

30-IA-4899-2025.doc

¶2

varsha

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 4899 OF 2025 IN

¶4

COMMERCIAL(IP) SUIT NO. 47 OF 2026

¶5

Meta Platforms Inc … Applicant IN THE MATTER BETWEEN 360 One Wam Limited … Plaintiff

¶6

vs.

¶7

John Doe … Defendant

¶8

Mr. Ameya Gokhale, Mr. Varun Pathak, Mr. Vishesh Sharma, Ms. Richa Bharti, Ms. Prasidhi Agarwal i/b. Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas and Co., for Defendant No.6. and for Applicant.

¶9

Digitally
signed by
VARSHA
VARSHA VIJAY
VIJAY RAJGURU
RAJGURU Date:
2026.04.01
14:55:55
+0530

¶10

Mr. Arvind Datar, Senior Advocate(on VC), Ms. Swati Agarwal, Mr. Rishabh Jaisani, Mr. Shashank Mishra, Mr. Harit Lakhani, Ms. Vedika Rathore, Mr. Abhishek Mookherjee, Mr. Suvaroop Roy (through VC) i/b. Mr. Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas and Co., for Defendant No.7.

¶11

Mr. Rahul Gaikwad, Ms. Komal Singh i/b. Gravitas Legal for Defendant No.8 and for Applicant in IAL/30671/25.

¶12

Mr. Prabhanjan Gujari for Defendant No. 10-SBI.

¶13

CORAM : GAURI GODSE, J. DATED : 23^rd MARCH 2026

¶14

ORDER:

¶15

This application is filed by defendant no.6 seeking modification of the ex-parte ad-interim order dated 23^rd June 2025 to

¶16

Page no. 1 of 3

¶17

30-IA-4899-2025.doc

¶18

the extent that the order cannot apply to defendant no.6. Learned counsel for defendant no.6 submits that the only reason for adding defendant no.6 as party to the suit is based on the allegation that defendant no.6 owns and operates social media platforms for instant messages such as facebook, instagram, whatsapp through defendant no. 6. He submits that there is no evidence with regard to instant messages on facebook or instagram. The only allegations and contentions raised are regarding the WhatsApp group.

¶19

Learned counsel for defendant no.6 relies upon the relevant averments in the application clarifying that WhatsApp LLC(defendant no.7) is a separate entity, i.e., a legally distinct entity from Meta (defendant no.6). He submits that in the application, it is clarified that defendant no.6 is incapable of taking any action for removing the contents from the WhatsApp service. He therefore submits that the ad-interim order or prayer in the interim application cannot apply so far as defendant no.6 is concerned. He submits that the plaintiff has not filed any reply to this application disputing the aforesaid contents.

¶20

Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that in view of the statements made by defendant no.6 in the application, the plaintiff would have no objection to allowing this application.

¶21

Page no. 2 of 3

¶22

30-IA-4899-2025.doc

¶23

I have perused the plaint and the contents of this application.

¶24

There are no allegations in the plaint regarding any violation or any infringing content on Facebook and Instagram. Defendant No. 7 is a separate entity, and Defendant No. 6 is not concerned with WhatsApp messages or groups. Hence, an ad-interim order or prayer in the interim application cannot be made applicable to defendant no.6.

¶25

Interim Application is therefore allowed by clarifying that the ex parte ad-interim order dated 23^rd June 2025 and the prayer in the interim application shall not apply to defendant no.6.

¶26

Interim Application is allowed in the aforesaid terms.

¶27

(GAURI GODSE, J.)

¶28

Page no. 3 of 3

Meta Platforms Inc. v. 360 One Wam Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Meta Platforms Inc. v. 360 One Wam Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Jeejabai Haribhu Bankhele Deceassed and Ors. vs Balwant Mahadu Bankhele Deceassed Thr Lrs and Ors.

Harendrasinh P. Solanki Since Decd. vs the Honble Administrator, Silvassa , Dadra and Nagar Haveli and Ors.

Maharashtra Academic of Engg. and Educational Research, Pune and Ors. vs Bhaskar Eknath Avhad and Ors.

One 97 Communications Limited vs John Doe

Chief Executive Officer Slum Rehabilitation Authority vs K S Chamankar Enterprises

Shiv Infra Vision Pvt. Ltd. vs K S Chamankar Enterprise