Before the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi
Date of Decision: February 29, 2024
Plaintiff: Abhi Traders
Defendant: Fashnear Technologies Private Limited (Defendant No. 1), along with Defendants No. 2 to 9 and Defendant No. 10 Ashok Kumar (John Doe)
Facts of the Case:
The case involved a dispute between Abhi Traders, operating under the brand name “
” and Fashnear Technologies Private Limited (Defendant No. 1), along with Defendants No. 2 to 9 and Defendant No. 10 Ashok Kumar (John Doe). Abhi Traders alleged copyright infringement and passing off against the Defendants.
Abhi Traders is the sole manufacturer, promoter, and seller of products listed under its copyrighted pictures and sold under the mark “Ibrana”. The Plaintiff alleged that Defendant Nos. 2 to 9 had been unlawfully using its copyrighted photographs and selling counterfeit garments on Defendant No. 1’s e-commerce platform- www.meesho.com . These products were alleged to be imitations of Plaintiff’s designs and were sold at lower prices, causing financial harm and consumer confusion.
Submission by Plaintiff:
1. The Plaintiff asserted its exclusive rights as the manufacturer, promoter, and seller of products listed under its copyrighted pictures. It argued that Defendants No. 2 to 9 were unlawfully using these copyrighted photographs to sell counterfeit garments on Defendant No. 1’s e-commerce platform- www.meesho.com. The Plaintiff contended that such actions constituted copyright infringement and passing off.
2. The Plaintiff claimed that the Defendants’ activities were causing financial harm and consumer confusion. By selling counterfeit products that mimicked the Plaintiff’s designs and images, Defendants No. 2 to 9 were allegedly misleading consumers and unfairly competing with the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff highlighted the adverse impact of these actions on its business and reputation.
3. The Plaintiff accused Defendant No. 1, Fashnear Technologies Private Limited, of complicity in the infringement activities of Defendants No. 2 to 9. It argued that Defendant No. 1’s failure to disclose complete seller details, as required by Rule 5(3) (a) of Consumer Protection (E-Commerce) Rules, 2020, facilitated the infringement. The Plaintiff contended that Defendant No. 1’s operations were aiding and abetting the infringement, thereby implicating it in the alleged wrongdoing.
Submission by Defendant No.1:
1. Defendant No. 1 argued that it acted as an intermediary in the transactions between sellers and buyers on its e-commerce platform. It contended that its responsibilities were limited to removing URLs of look-alike images and products from its platform, contingent upon receiving a court order to do so. Defendant No. 1 asserted its compliance with legal requirements for intermediaries under relevant statutes.
2. Defendant No. 1 disputed the Plaintiff’s allegations of complicity in the infringement activities of Defendants No. 2 to 9. It maintained that it was not directly involved in the infringement and asserted its willingness to comply with takedown orders issued by the Court.
3. Defendant No. 1 asserted that it had fulfilled its obligations as an intermediary under relevant statutes. It stated that it did not engage in any unlawful activities and had mechanisms in place to address copyright infringement issues on its platform.
Judgement
The Court, having considered the submissions presented and the comparative chart of look-alike products provided by the Plaintiff, found that a prima facie case had been established. It appeared that Defendants No. 2 to 9, along with the unidentified Defendant No. 10, were egregiously exploiting the Plaintiff’s product images, listing visuals, and product designs for their financial gain, leveraging the Plaintiff’s reputation.
Such sellers were unequivocally not entitled to replicate the Plaintiff’s photographs, images, or product designs in such a manner, thereby inflicting harm upon the Plaintiff. While the Court acknowledged the pivotal role of e-commerce platforms in offering new opportunities for small designers and enterprises, it was imperative that these platforms were not exploited to facilitate the imitation of products and the infringement of intellectual property rights. The production of look-alike products, misuse of product images that infringed upon the Plaintiff’s copyrights undermined the integrity of fair trade and competition, warranting intervention to protect the Plaintiff’s lawful interests.
The judgment delivered by the Court acknowledged the evidence presented by the Plaintiff, including a comparative chart of look-alike products, and concluded that a prima facie case of infringement had been established. The Court found that Defendants No. 2 to 9, along with Defendant No. 10, had exploited the Plaintiff’s product images and designs for their financial gain, thereby harming the Plaintiff’s reputation and infringing upon its intellectual property rights. The importance of protecting intellectual property rights in the context of e-commerce platforms and highlighted the need for intervention to safeguard the Plaintiff’s lawful interests.
Conclusion
An injunction was granted against Defendants No. 2 to 9 prohibiting them from reproducing, copying, or imitating the Plaintiff’s designs or images. Additionally, Defendant No. 1- Fashnear Technologies Private Limited, was directed to disclose complete seller details, enhancing transparency and accountability on its e-commerce platform-Meesho.
Such an order not only underscores the importance of protecting intellectual property rights in the digital marketplace and preventing the exploitation of e-commerce platforms for the infringement of such rights but also reflected a commitment to fair trade and competition while ensuring the integrity of creative and innovative endeavors.
While the Court acknowledged the pivotal role of e-commerce platforms in offering new opportunities for small designers and enterprises, it was imperative that these platforms were not exploited to facilitate the imitation of products and the infringement of intellectual property rights. The production of look-alike products, misuse of product images that infringed upon the Plaintiff’s copyrights undermined the integrity of fair trade and competition, warranting intervention to protect the Plaintiff’s lawful interests.
The Plaintiff was Represented by Mark Shield before Hon’ble High Court of Delhi.
