Delhi High Court Permits Indiamart To Provide 'PUMA' Search Option In Drop Down Menu But It Must Delete Counterfeit Listings When Notified

The Delhi High Court has set aside a single judge ruling to the extent of restraining Indiamart from providing registered trademark “PUMA” in respect of the goods as search options in its drop down menu presented to prospective sellers at the time of their registration on the e-commerce platform.

A division bench comprising Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju however sustained the direction that Indiamart shall take down all infringing listings containing the PUMA marks on the same being brought to its notice.

The Court disposed of the appeal filed by Indiamart Intermesh Limited challenging the single judge order passed on January 03 last year.

The single judge had ruled that an e-commerce platform cannot become haven for infringers and it must protect the intellectual property rights of others. It said so while passing interim injunction order in favour of PUMA in its trademark infringement suit against Indiamart.

It was PUMA's case that on searching the word “PUMA” on Indiamart's search option, various counterfeit goods bearing fake “Puma” marks put up by third-party sellers were displayed for purchase.

In appeal, the division bench rejected the contention that the action of offering an option to the sellers to describe their products by a brand name, per se could be termed as a dishonest business practice.

It prima facie found no grounds to accept the allegation of Puma that Indiamart, by mentioning an option regarding description of goods by brand names, encourages persons, who are neither proprietors nor authorised to use the brand, to use the same.

“Prima facie, we are unable to read any intent on the part of IIL to encourage listing of counterfeit Puma Products by offering the sellers an option to choose a specific description of their products/services by indicating the brand name associated with their product/services,” the Court said.

Furthermore, the Bench observed that there is no dispute that on receipt of knowledge of counterfeiting, Indiamart would be obliged to take down the link and failure to do so would be actionable. In such circumstances, the safe harbour of Section 79(1) of the IT Act would not be available to Indiamart, it said.

The Bench said that the fact that Indiamart provides an option for a seller to choose the brand of its products specifically describing its goods cannot, prima facie, be held to be a ground to hold that it aids and abets the infringer in displaying the counterfeit products of a particular brand.

“In our view, subject to IIL making reasonable efforts, to cause users of Indiamart not to host, display, upload or share any information that infringes the PUMA trademarks, as discussed earlier; IIL is not required to be interdicted from providing options to identify the products/services by their brands/trademarks and operating its B2B portal – Indiamart,” the Court concluded.

Title: INDIAMART INTERMESH LTD v. PUMA SE

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 661

Click here to read order