PRATHIBA M.SINGH
Christian Louboutin Sas – Appellant
Versus
Nakul Bajaj – Respondent
The facts of the case involve a luxury shoe manufacturer alleging that an e-commerce platform was selling counterfeit products bearing their trademarks and using their brand name, photographs, and trademarks without permission. The platform was also accused of using meta-tags and images that alluded to a connection with the brand, thereby infringing on the proprietary rights of the plaintiff. The platform claimed to act merely as an intermediary, facilitating bookings from various sellers, and maintained that it did not actively participate in the sale or promotion of counterfeit goods. It also argued that it was not liable under the safe harbor provisions of the IT Act, 2000, as it was only providing a technical service and did not actively promote or aid in infringement.
The court held that the platform was not a mere intermediary because it was actively involved in selling counterfeit products, controlling the products sold on its platform, promoting them, using the plaintiff’s trademarks and photographs without permission, and not taking adequate steps to prevent the sale of counterfeit goods. The court observed that such active participation disqualifies the platform from claiming safe harbor protection under the IT Act. It was further held that the platform’s use of meta-tags, photographs, and model names, which alluded to a connection with the brand, also constituted infringement and did not qualify for immunity.
The court concluded that platforms involved in actively promoting, aiding, or abetting infringement could not be entitled to exemption under the safe harbor provisions. It emphasized that the immunity is meant for passive intermediaries that do not participate in or promote unlawful acts. When a platform conspires, aids, or actively participates in the sale of counterfeit goods, it loses the protection of Section 79 of the IT Act. Therefore, in this case, the platform was held liable for infringement and was directed to disclose seller details, obtain authenticity guarantees, and remove infringing content, including meta-tags.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J.
1. The present suit has been filed by the Plaintiff, who claims to be a manufacturer of luxury shoes. The name of the Plaintiff Company - Christian Louboutin (hereinafter, ‘Plaintiff’) is based on the name of its founder, namely Mr. Christian Louboutin, a famous designer of high end luxury products. The Plaintiff claims that the name, likeness and photographs of Mr. Louboutin enjoy goodwill and protection under the Trademarks Act, 1999 (hereinafter, ‘TM Act’). The products of the Plaintiff are worn and preferred by a large number of celebrities. The Plaintiff claims that it enjoys enormous repute and goodwill in the fashion industry and was rated amongst top 5 prestigious women’s luxury shoe brand. The name “Christian Louboutin”, in word form and logo form, as also the red sole mark, are registered trademarks in India, and there are various other applications which are also pending registration. The Plaintiff further claims that its products are sold only through an authorized network of exclusive distributors. In India, there are two stores in Mumb
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.