Indiamart is prima facie infringing Puma’s trademark, and it cannot claim intermediary safe harbour as its actions do not amount to the requisite due diligence required under the intermediary guidelines, says the Delhi High Court.
The Delhi High Court has recently granted an interim injunction against Indiamart from using Puma’s trademark in its drop-down menu and product listings. The Court stated that Indiamart’s drop-down menu for sellers that contains the Puma trademark makes it liable for direct trademark infringement and dilution. It also stated that the product listings on the platform containing the Puma trademark give rise to direct infringement on behalf of Indiamart.
The Court observed that Indiamart participates directly in the infringing activities by permitting products bearing infringing marks to be listed on its platform, and by not taking the requisite steps to prevent infringement. As per the Court, by not taking the action required under Rule 3(1)(b) of the intermediary guidelines, which requires Indiamart to not only prevent infringement but also to take down IP infringing products when it is made aware of the same, Indiamart has lost its intermediary status. Indiamart’s direct participation, aid, and financial benefits from infringements on its platform make it a direct trademark infringer.
While passing the order, the Court observed that intermediaries and eCommerce platforms may conduct their business for profit, but while doing so they must ensure that they do not infringe, or promote the infringement of third-party IP on their platforms. They must take necessary steps towards taking down infringing products and must ensure that their platform is not used for IP infringement through appropriate due diligence and verification measures. As per the Court, just placing conditions in terms of use, and taking an undertaking from a seller that it will not sell infringing products is not enough to constitute due diligence required of intermediaries.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI; CS(COMM) 607/2021
Disclaimer
The case notes in this blog post have been written by IP attorneys at BananaIP counsels based on their review and understanding of the Judgments. It may be noted that other IP attorneys and experts in the field may have different opinions about the cases, or arrive at different conclusions therefrom. It is advisable to read the Judgments before making any decisions based on the case notes.
