{"id":3233,"date":"2025-07-09T11:20:46","date_gmt":"2025-07-09T05:50:46","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/?p=3233"},"modified":"2025-07-09T11:20:46","modified_gmt":"2025-07-09T05:50:46","slug":"trademark-infringement-and-intermediary-liability-division-bench-overturns-injunction-against-indiamart-in-puma-counterfeit-case","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/trademark-infringement-and-intermediary-liability-division-bench-overturns-injunction-against-indiamart-in-puma-counterfeit-case\/","title":{"rendered":"Trademark Infringement and Intermediary Liability: Division Bench Overturns Injunction Against IndiaMART in PUMA Counterfeit Case"},"content":{"rendered":"<h1><strong>INDIAMART INTERMESH LTD. <\/strong>[Appellant]\u00a0 <strong>Vs.\u00a0 <\/strong><strong>PUMA SE<\/strong> [Respondent]<\/h1>\n<p>FAO(OS) (COMM) 6\/2024, CM APPL. 2216 &amp; 2219 of 2024<\/p>\n<p>(CORAM: HON&#8217;BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU and HON&#8217;BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU)<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>The case involves an appeal by\u00a0IndiaMART Intermesh Limited (IIL)\u00a0against a judgment by a Single Judge, which ruled in favor of\u00a0PUMA SE (PSE)\u00a0in a trademark infringement suit. PSE had filed a lawsuit seeking an injunction against IIL for allowing third-party sellers on its platform (Indiamart.com) to use the\u00a0\u2018PUMA\u2019\u00a0trademark as a search term, keyword, or product listing, thereby facilitating the sale of counterfeit goods.<\/p>\n<p>The\u00a0Single Judge held\u00a0that IIL\u2019s use of \u2018PUMA\u2019 in its drop-down menu for sellers constituted\u00a0trademark infringement\u00a0under\u00a0Sections 29(1), (2), and (4)\u00a0of the\u00a0Trade Marks Act, 1999, as it enabled counterfeit sales. The court also rejected IIL\u2019s claim of\u00a0\u2018safe harbor\u2019 protection\u00a0under\u00a0Section 79 of the IT Act, stating that IIL failed to take reasonable steps to prevent infringement, as required under\u00a0Rule 3(1)(b)(iv) of the IT Rules, 2021.<\/p>\n<p>IIL argued\u00a0that it is merely an\u00a0intermediary, providing a B2B platform connecting buyers and sellers without actively participating in transactions. It contended that the drop-down menu was only for\u00a0descriptive purposes\u00a0and did not amount to trademark use. However, the court found that IIL\u2019s\u00a0active facilitation\u00a0of brand-name listings, without verification, contributed to consumer deception and counterfeit sales.<\/p>\n<p>The\u00a0key legal issues\u00a0were whether IIL\u2019s use of \u2018PUMA\u2019 in its drop-down menu constituted\u00a0trademark infringement\u00a0and whether it qualified for\u00a0intermediary immunity. The court ruled against IIL, emphasizing the need for\u00a0due diligence\u00a0in preventing trademark misuse on e-commerce platforms. The judgment reinforces that intermediaries must\u00a0actively prevent infringement\u00a0to claim legal protection.<\/p>\n<p>The dispute revolves around\u00a0IndiaMART Intermesh Limited (IIL)\u00a0and its use of\u00a0PUMA SE\u2019s (PSE)\u00a0trademark \u2018PUMA\u2019 in a\u00a0drop-down menu\u00a0for sellers registering on its B2B platform,\u00a0Indiamart.com. PSE alleged that this facilitated the sale of\u00a0counterfeit PUMA products, constituting\u00a0trademark infringement\u00a0under\u00a0Sections 29(1), (2), and (4)\u00a0of the\u00a0Trade Marks Act, 1999. The\u00a0Single Judge ruled in favor of PSE, restraining IIL from using \u2018PUMA\u2019 in its drop-down menu and directing it to remove infringing listings. However, the\u00a0Division Bench overturned this decision, holding that: IIL is an intermediary\u00a0under\u00a0Section 79 of the IT Act\u00a0and merely provides a\u00a0listing service, akin to a\u00a0Yellow Pages Directory, without actively participating in transactions.<\/p>\n<p>The\u00a0drop-down menu\u00a0is a\u00a0facilitative tool\u00a0for sellers to describe their products accurately, not an endorsement of counterfeit goods. No intent to aid infringement\u00a0was established, as IIL does not\u00a0control or verify\u00a0sellers\u2019 products beyond basic checks. Section 30(1) of the TM Act\u00a0permits\u00a0honest descriptive use\u00a0of trademarks, provided it does not unfairly exploit the mark\u2019s reputation. While IIL must\u00a0remove infringing listings upon notice, it cannot be compelled to\u00a0eliminate brand-name options\u00a0entirely.<\/p>\n<p>The court upheld the\u00a0take-down obligation\u00a0for counterfeit listings but rejected the broader injunction, emphasizing that\u00a0intermediaries like IIL are not liable for third-party infringements unless complicit. The ruling balances\u00a0trademark protection\u00a0with the\u00a0practical realities of digital marketplaces, ensuring intermediaries are not overburdened with preemptive verification duties.<\/p>\n\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>INDIAMART INTERMESH LTD. [Appellant]\u00a0 Vs.\u00a0 PUMA SE [Respondent] FAO(OS) (COMM) 6\/2024, CM APPL. 2216 &amp; 2219 of 2024 (CORAM: HON&#8217;BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU and HON&#8217;BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU) &nbsp; The case involves an appeal by\u00a0IndiaMART Intermesh Limited (IIL)\u00a0against a judgment by a Single Judge, which ruled in favor of\u00a0PUMA SE (PSE)\u00a0in a [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":3235,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[12],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-3233","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-judgement"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3233","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3233"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3233\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3237,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3233\/revisions\/3237"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/3235"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3233"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3233"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3233"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}