Summary
Bol7 Technologies obtained a permanent injunction against sellers infringing its Toy Building Block design. The Court held that the sellers' failure to respond amounted to an admission of infringement. While claims for damages were made, they weren’t granted due to lack of evidence. The case reinforces protection of registered designs and intermediary responsibilities.
Introduction
In this case, Bol7 Technologies Pvt. Ltd. (“Bol7” or “Plaintiff”) filed a suit for a permanent injunction against Flipkart Internet Private Limited & Ors. (“Defendants”). The Bol7 sought an injunction against infringement of its registered design (under Section 22 of the Designs Act, 2000), dilution, tarnishment, and damages, including a rendition of accounts of profits.
Background
Mrs. Neha Gupta, the original owner of the design, transferred all her rights in the registered design to Bol7 for industrial and commercial use, in 2021. Since 2022, Bol7 has been selling its products bearing the registered design on online platforms such as Flipkart, Amazon, and so on, under the name ‘Navya’s Playroom’.
The details of the registered design are as follows:
Design No: 345217-001
Class: 21-01
Name of the Article: Toy Building Block
Date of Filing: 23/06/2021
Date of Publication: 27/05/2022
Facts
Bol7 found various sellers selling counterfeit toys bearing their registered design online and offline. They issued legal notices in June, 2022 against various sellers for design infringement, leading some to stop while others continued. They also wrote to one of the Defendants requesting to take action against counterfeit products, but they refused, citing their role as an intermediary. Aggrieved by the same, Bol7 filed this suit against the Defendants.
The Defendants in this suit are as listed below:
| Name of Defendant | Defendant Number | Status |
|---|---|---|
| Flipkart Internet Private Limited | D1 | Deleted from array of parties |
| Amazon India Pvt. Ltd. | D2 | Deleted from array of parties |
| Fashnear Technologies Private Limited | D3 | Deleted from array of parties |
| First Cry-India | D4 | Deleted from array of parties |
| Acevector Limited (Snapdeal) | D5 | Deleted from array of parties |
| Techhark Trade Inc | D6 | Ex-parte |
| TOD2TEEN | D7 | Claim withdrawn by Plaintiff |
| Present Enterprises | D8 | Ex-parte |
| Galactic | D9 | Claim withdrawn by Plaintiff |
| Babies Plus Point | D10 | Ex-parte |
Plaintiff’s contentions
Bol7 contended that there was a large availability of counterfeit toys online and offline, infringing its registered design. They argued that the Defendants were passing off their inferior quality goods as Bol7’s, owing to which its design was being diluted. This even led the customers to believe that it was Bol7 that was selling lower-quality goods, and they received a lot of complaints.
Bol7 also argued that the volume of fake products on the Defendants’ websites was too high, making it impossible to report each one individually for removal. Bol7 stated that this had seriously harmed its business, reputation, and goodwill.
Status of Defendants
-
- Intermediaries: The e-commerce platforms (D1 to D5) invoked their status as intermediaries and undertook to take down infringing products available on their websites. Based on this undertaking, their names were deleted from the list of Defendants.
- Ex-Parte: The sellers of counterfeit goods (D6, D8 & D10) did not file written statements despite service of summons, they were placed ex parte.
- Withdrawal: The Plaintiff withdrew its claims against the remaining Defendants (D7 & D9) through prior applications.
Court’s Analysis
Upon perusal of pleadings and evidence, the Court found that Bol7 was the registered proprietor of the “TOY BUILDING BLOCK” design and was therefore fully authorised to and within its right to restrain other persons from selling counterfeit products that misused its registered design.
The Court noted that Bol7’s evidence remained uncontested till the end. Accordingly, the Court held that the failure by the sellers to contest the suit shall be deemed as an admission of Bol7’s contention that they were pirating its registered design.
Although Bol7 claimed damages, they did not provide any evidence to prove that they were entitled to recover any damages from the Defendants.
Order
Accordingly, the Court granted a permanent injunction against the sellers and directed e-commerce platforms to remove all infringing products within 36 hours of receiving the list from the Plaintiff.
Citation: Bol7 Technologies Pvt. Ltd. V. Flipkart Internet Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., CS (Comm.) No. 251/2023, 4th March, 2025, decided by District Judge (Commercial Court) – 01, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi. Available at https://indiankanoon.org/doc/194087440/.
Author: Ms. Charishma V. R.
Article & Accessibility Review: Ms. Kavya Sadashivan