IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
S. MURALIDHAR, TALWANT SINGH, JJ.
Amazon Seller Services Pvt. Ltd. & Others - Appellant
Versus
Amway India Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. & Others - Respondent
FAO(OS). Nos. 133, 134, 135, 141, 142, 157 of 2019 & CM. APPL. Nos. 32954, 32956, 32958, 34228, 34230, 37244 of 2019 (stay)
Decided On : 31-01-2020
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of the case and appeals. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. amway's business operations and guidelines. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. product tracking and refund policy. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. unauthorized sales and complaints. (Para 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 5. amazon's role and response. (Para 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 6. lc findings and product tampering. (Para 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 7. court's binding interpretation of dsgs. (Para 39 , 40) |
| 8. issues surrounding trademark and intermediary status. (Para 94 , 132) |
| 9. final judgment and implications. (Para 138) |
JUDGMENT :
S. MURALIDHAR, J.
Introduction
1. These are six appeals directed against the same impugned common judgment dated 8th July, 2019 passed by the learned Single Judge in interlocutory applications filed in the corresponding suits by the Respondents in these appeals. By the said judgment, the learned Single Judge has injuncted the Appellants from selling the goods of the Respondents, who claim to be Direct Selling Entities (‘DSEs’) in terms of the Model Framework for Guidelines on Direct Selling dated 26th October, 2016 i.e. Direct Selling Guidelines (‘DSGs’), on the Appellants’ e-commerce platforms.
2. Three of the present appeals i.e. FAO (OS) 133/2019, 134/2019 and 135/2019 are by Amazon Seller Services Private Limited (‘Amazon’) against Amway India Enterprises Private Limited (‘Amway’), Oriflame India Private Limited (‘Oriflame’) and Modicare Limited (‘Modicare’), respectively. Two of the appeals, FAO (OS) 141/2019 and 142/2019 are by Cloudtail India Private Limited (‘Cloudtail’) against Amway and Oriflame respectively. The sixth appeal i.e. FAO (OS) 157/2019 is by Snapdeal Private Limited (‘Snapdeal’) against Amway.
3. Since common questions of law arise from the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge and the pleadings in the corresponding suits, they are being disposed of by this judgment.
4. At the outset, it is required to be noticed that the parties before the Court have categorically stated that the suits filed by the Respondents and the corresponding appeals before this Court are not to be considered as arising out of “commercial disputes”, falling within the purview of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (‘CCA’). They have accordingly been heard by this Bench, which is otherwise not authorised to hear appeals which are to be heard by the Commercial Appellate Division of this Court in terms of the CCA.
Facts in Amazon’s appeals
5. Amway is engaged in the manufacture and distribution business of its healthcare, wellness, cosmetic, and home products through a business model called the Direct Selling Business Model (‘DSBM’). The products offered for sale by Amway include moisturizers, creams, lipsticks, detergents, surface cleaners, shaving creams, deodorants etc. Amway claims that it has given an undertaking to the Government of India (‘GoI’) to abide by the DSGs in the conduct of its business. Amway also sells its products on its own online market place, www.amway.in.
6. Amway is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Amway Corporation, now known as Alticor Inc., headquartered at Ada, Michigan, USA. The parent company which was founded in 1959 applied to the Ministry of Industry, GoI in June, 1994 for setting up a wholly owned subsidiary to replicate the “Amway Model”, proposing to “establish and develop a direct selling business of products which shall be sourced from local independent Indian manufacturers particularly small scale units by providing technology support to products of international standard”.
7. After the GoI granted its approval to Amway Corporation by an order dated 26th August, 1994 to commence operations in India as a DSE in terms of its proposal, Amway came to be incorporated on 3rd August, 1995. On 4th August, 2004, GoI granted approval to Amway to set up its own manufacturing facilities for manufacture of personal care and cosmetic products and to also import fragrances, shampoos, lotions, body firming gels, scrubs etc. This was made subject to the conditions which inter-ali
Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala (1986) 3 SCC 615
Baker Hughes Limited v. Hiroo Khushalani (1998) 74 DLT 715
Chief Commercial Manager, South Central Railway
Delhi International Airport Limited v. International Lease Finance Corporation (2015) 8 SCC 446
Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Limited v. Union of India (1996) 10 SCC 104
Gulf Goans Hotels Company Limited v. Union of India (2014) 10 SCC 673
New Delhi Municipal Council v. Tanvi Trading and Credit Private Limited (2008) 8 SCC 765
Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Limited v. Punjab Drugs Manufacturers Association (1999) 6 SCC 247
G.J. Fernandez v. State of Mysore AIR 1967 SC 1753
Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015) 5 SCC 1
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Thakur Bharat Singh AIR 1967 SC 1170
Poonam Verma v. Delhi Development Authority (2007) 13 SCC 154
Narender Kumar Maheshwari v Union of India (1979) 3 SCC 489
G.J. Fernandez v. State of Mysore AIR 1967 SC 1753
Union of India v. Naveen Jindal (2004) 2 SCC 510
Union of India v. Moolchand Khairati Ram Trust AIR 2018 SC 5426
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.