The Delhi High Court recently observed that an e-commerce platform cannot become a haven for infringers and it must protect the intellectual property rights of others.
During the hearing, a single judge bench of Justice C Hari Shankar noted that e-commerce websites are commercial ventures and are inherently profit oriented. He added that nothing is objectionable in this but while ensuring their highest returns such websites have also to sedulously protect intellectual property rights of others.
Justice C Hari Shankar mentioned that e-commerce platforms in order to enhance their financial gains, cannot put in place a protocol by which infringers and counterfeiters are provided an avenue to infringe and counterfeit. Ruling that such a protocol has to meet with firm judicial disapproval, the court said that an e-commerce platform cannot become a haven for infringers.
The following observations were made in an interim order restraining IndiaMART IndiaMESH Limited, which runs the e-commerce platform IndiaMART from providing any registered trademark of PUMA in respect of goods as a search option in its drop-down menu presented to prospective sellers when they register on IndiaMART platform.
Justice Shankar directed IndiaMART to take down all infringing listings containing any of the PUMA’s registered trademarks. Reportedly, the injunction will remain in force till the Court decides PUMA’s trademark infringement suit against IndiaMART.
PUMA lodged the case stating that several counterfeit goods bearing fake PUMA marks have been put up by third-party sellers on IndiaMART and when one searches for PUMA products on IndiaMART, these fake products are also displayed. Additionally, the High Court was informed that when a seller registers himself/herself on IndiaMART, a drop-down menu is provided by which the seller can represent himself/herself as a dealer of PUMA shoes.
Taking cognizance of the matter, Justice Hari Shankar held that by allowing the prospective sellers to register themselves without any prior verification, it can prima facie be said that IndiaMART has aided commission of the unlawful act of counterfeiting, using its platform as a springboard for the purpose. The single-judge bench emphasized that aiding is a step before abetting and providing an avenue for counterfeiting is also aiding in the misdemeanour.
Justice Shankar concluded that as IndiaMART IndiaMESH Limited has, therefore, prima facie aided the commission of the unlawful act of counterfeiting and infringement, it cannot claim the benefit of safe harbour under Section 79(1). Consecutively, the Court passed the interim order against IndiaMART.