The recent ruling by the Delhi High Court asserts that e-commerce platforms are obligated to actively safeguard the intellectual property rights of others. Furthermore, these platforms are unable to seek'safe 'harbor' status as intermediaries if they are utilized to facilitate counterfeiting activities.

Justice C Hari Shankar emphasized that, despite being commercial entities, e-commerce platforms cannot serve as sanctuaries for those who infringe upon intellectual property rights. It was highlighted that these platforms cannot establish protocols that inadvertently enable infringers and counterfeiters to operate freely within their domain.

In an interim directive, the single judge ordered a restraint on IndiaMART IndiaMESH Limited, the operator of the IndiaMART e-commerce platform, from including any registered trademark of PUMA among the search options presented to potential sellers during their registration process on the IndiaMART platform.

Justice Hari Shankar mandated IndiaMART to remove all listings that contain any of PUMA's registered trademarks, citing infringement concerns.

The injunction will persist until the Court reaches a decision on PUMA's trademark infringement case against IndiaMART.

PUMA lodged the case, alleging that numerous counterfeit items carrying fraudulent PUMA markings were listed by third-party vendors on IndiaMART. These fake products were displayed alongside genuine PUMA items when users searched for PUMA products on the IndiaMART platform. It was presented to the Court that during the registration process on IndiaMART, sellers were offered a drop-down menu allowing them to present themselves as dealers of PUMA shoes.

Upon selecting this option from the drop-down menu during registration, the individual is registered on the IndiaMART portal as a seller of PUMA shoes. Consequently, if a buyer later searches for "PUMA" or "PUMA shoes" as the desired product, the PUMA shoes offered by the seller are showcased among the available choices displayed to the purchaser.

The process allows any potential counterfeiter to register themselves as a seller of PUMA shoes without prior verification by IndiaMART. This loophole ultimately facilitates trademark infringement, as highlighted during the proceedings.

After a complete argument, the Court passed the interim order against IndiaMART.

Advocates Ranjan Narula and Shivangi Kohli appeared for PUMA.

IndiaMART was represented by Senior Advocate Rajshekhar Rao and advocates Pulkit Gupta, Rhea Dube and Zeya Junaid.

Case Title : PUMA SE v IndiaMART InterMESH Ltd