Image used for consultant function solely.
| Photo Credit: AP
An e-commerce platform can’t become a haven for infringers of mental property and have such a system which gives an avenue to counterfeiters, the Delhi High Court has stated.
The courtroom noticed that e-commerce web sites are industrial ventures and are inherently profit-oriented, which isn’t objectionable, however they’ve to guard mental property rights of others.
“An e-commerce platform cannot become a haven for infringers. Men are not angels. Where easy money is visible, the conscience at times takes a nap,” stated Justice C Hari Shankar in a current order.
“E-commerce websites are commercial ventures, and are inherently profit oriented. There is, of course, nothing objectionable in this; but, while ensuring their highest returns, such websites have also to sedulously protect intellectual property rights of others. They cannot, with a view to further their financial gains, put in place a protocol by which infringers and counterfeiters are provided an avenue to infringe and counterfeit. Any such protocol has to meet with firm judicial disapproval,” the choose acknowledged.
The courtroom’s observations got here whereas coping with a lawsuit by sportswear model Puma SE which alleged that e-commerce platform Indiamart was being utilized by varied sellers to hawk its counterfeit items.
The platform submitted that it was not the originator of the knowledge referring to the products put up for sale on its web site because it was merely a space-provider and could be prepared to take down any itemizing put up by a counterfeiter when it is dropped at its discover.
In its interim order, the courtroom noticed that counterfeiting is a widely known industrial evil, even within the digital world, and e-commerce platforms are statutorily required to make affordable efforts to make sure that infringing content material shouldn’t be posted on its web site and the platform shouldn’t be used for promoting counterfeit items.
It stated that prima facie, the e-commerce platform within the on the spot case aided the fee of the illegal act of counterfeiting and infringement and it can’t declare the good thing about “safe harbour” from legal responsibility underneath the Information Technology Act.
“There is nothing inherently illegal in IIL (IndiaMART IndiaMESH Ltd) providing a drop down menu from which prospective sellers, on the Indiamart platform, can select the brand which they intend to sell. If, however, there are not, in place, sufficient checks and balances to prevent counterfeiters from misrepresenting themselves as genuine sellers, the protocol cannot withstand judicial scrutiny,” the courtroom acknowledged.
The courtroom directed taking down of all infringing listings in relation to Puma on Indiamart whereas additionally asking the platform to not present any of the registered Puma logos in respect of any items as search choices within the drop down menu offered to potential sellers on the time of their registration.
“IIL can well seek modification, or even vacation, of the order, if it can demonstrate to the Court that it has put, in place, sufficient regulatory and protective measures to render impossible abuse of the Indiamart platform by counterfeiters. Till then, however, the present position, in which there is rampant counterfeiting ‘or even the possibility of it’ on the Indiamart platform, cannot be allowed to continue,” the courtroom stated.
