In 2024, the Delhi High Court held that the use of the PUMA mark within the drop-down menu on IndiaMART’s platform constitutes ‘use’ as a trade mark and was considered to be infringing. By using the mark to guide buyers and sellers to the brand, IndiaMART was acting beyond the scope of a mere intermediary and could not claim protection under the safe harbour provisions of the Information Technology Act, 2000. Aggrieved by this, IndiaMART filed an appeal against the decision of the Court. On appeal before a Division Bench, the Bench observed that providing an option to sellers to describe their products by a brand name does not amount to dishonest business conduct. This option also does not establish that IndiaMART was encouraging unauthorized use of a registered trade mark. Thus, the use of the mark in this case was not infringing. The Bench also stated that IndiaMART qualifies as an intermediary, as there was insufficient material to prove that IndiaMART had conspired, abetted, or aided trademark infringement through its platform. Though the Division Bench set aside the previous order, they directed IndiaMART to promptly take down any infringing listings upon notice and ensure due diligence mechanisms are followed on its platform.
Source: Indiamart Intermesh Ltd. v. Puma Se [FAO(OS) (COMM) 6/2024]