IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Prathiba M. Singh, J.
Triology Solutions Private Limited – Appellant
Versus
Flipkart Internet Private Limited & Ors. – Respondents
CS(COMM) 709 of 2022 and I.A. 16259 of 2023
Decided On : 28-08-2023
Trademark Infringement - MUUCHSTAC - Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 CPC - Trademarks Act, 1999, FAO(OS)(COMM) 282/2022 - The court discussed the issue of 'latching on' and its implications on trademark infringement and passing off. The court emphasized the need for prompt action to prevent the sale of counterfeit products and the adverse impact of latching-on feature on brand reputation and revenue. The court directed Flipkart to disable latching-on for unauthorized sellers of Plaintiff's products and file an affidavit explaining the process and steps taken to comply with the order.
Fact of the Case:
The Plaintiff, Triology Solutions Pvt. Ltd., sought protection of its registered mark 'MUUCHSTAC' and alleged that Defendant No. 2 was selling counterfeit products on Flipkart, wrongly portraying itself as one of the 'more sellers' of Plaintiff's products.
Finding of the Court:
The court allowed early hearing and disposed of the application for interim relief, emphasizing the adverse impact of counterfeit products and the need for prompt action to prevent such sales.
Issues: Trademark infringement, passing off, disabling 'latching on' feature, prompt action to prevent sale of counterfeit products.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for prompt action to prevent the sale of counterfeit products and the adverse impact of the latching-on feature on brand reputation and revenue. It directed Flipkart to disable latching-on for unauthorized sellers of Plaintiff's products.
Final Decision: The application for interim injunction was disposed of, with Flipkart directed to disable latching-on for unauthorized sellers of Plaintiff's products and file an affidavit explaining the process and steps taken to comply with the order.
JUDGMENT
Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)--This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
I.A. 16259/2023 (for early hearing)
2. This is an application filed by the Plaintiff for early hearing of the application filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 CPC.
3. Early hearing is allowed. Application is disposed of.
I.A. 16723/2022 (u/O XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 CPC)
4. The Plaintiff - Triology Solutions Pvt. Ltd. is the proprietor of the trademark `MUUCHSTAC' and its formations, and sells medicated and non-medicated cosmetic products on various online retail platforms such as Defendant No.1-Flipkart Internet Pvt. Ltd.
5. The Plaintiff has filed the present suit seeking protection of its registered mark `MUUCHSTAC' [IMG] bearing no. 3919768 in Class 3. The grievance of the Plaintiff in the present suit is that Defendant No. 2-Saira Bano is indulging in sale and manufacturing of counterfeiting products on the Flipkart platform, wrongly portraying itself as one of the 'more sellers' of Plaintiff's products. The allegation is that names portrayed as 'more sellers' on the website of Defendant No.1 of Plaintiff's goods keep changing and are not constant and Defendant No. 1 authorizes them to interfere with Plaintiff's product listings.
6. Vide order dated 31st October 2022, while noting that the larger issue of the feature `latching on' was pending consideration before the ld. Division, the Court observed as follows:
"25. Learned counsel further submits that insofar as relief of disabling the latching feature is concerned, the larger issue is pending before the Division Bench in FAO(OS)(COMM) 282/2022 and vide order dated 27.09.2022 the Division Bench has stayed the observations made by the learned Single Judge in paragraphs 17 to 20 of the impugned order therein. 26. In view of the fact that the larger issue of the feature of 'latching on' is pending consideration before the Division Bench, no relief can be granted to the Plaintiff at, this stage. However, it is open to the Plaintiff to inform Defendant No.1 of any infringing link and needless to state that looking to the fact that the products in question are cosmetic products, Defendant No.1 shall take prompt action to take down the links of all resellers appearing on the webpage relating to Plaintiff s products."
7. The above order of the ld. Single judge in this matter rejected the prayer for interim relief at that stage owing to the order dated 27th September, 2022, passed in FAO(OS) (COMM) 282/2022 titled Flipkart Internet Private Limited v. Akash Aggarwal & Anr. dealing with the issue of `latching on'. The ld. Division Bench had observed as follows:
"7. In so far as the respondent (plaintiff) is concerned, the appellant has undertaken, without prejudice to its rights and contentions, that it would take down the link of all resellers appearing on the webpage relating to the respondent's products. However, it is submitted that the impugned judgment has wide ranging observations, which are not limited to the respondent's (plaintiff) case alone. The impugned judgement effectively proscribes the appellant from using the feature of latching on or indicating "more sellers" in respect of seller of any goods.
8. Mr. Rajiv Nayyar, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant has drawn the attention of this Court to Paragraphs 17,18,19 and 20 of the impugned order:
....
9. Mr. Nayyar submits that the observations, as set out above, effectively results in the appellant being restrained from using the feature of "latching on" on its site. He submits that the said feature per se does not infringe any law.
10. The assumption that the feature of "latching on" falls foul of the Trademarks Act, 1999 or amounts to passing off goods requires examination. Indisputably, it is permissible for the resellers of genuine products to also sell their products on the e-platform and the same would not infringe the Trademark Act.
11. Prima facie providing a link of another seller on the webpage of a particular seller,
Prompt action to prevent the sale of counterfeit products and the adverse impact of the latching-on feature on brand reputation and revenue.
E-commerce platforms must prevent unauthorized sellers from using trademarks, as this constitutes passing off under trademark law, thereby protecting intellectual property rights in the digital marke....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a fresh cause of action does not justify filing a new suit when the matter is part-heard before another court. The judgment also highlighted t....
A plaintiff cannot file multiple suits for the same cause of action concurrently in different jurisdictions; it constitutes forum shopping and is impermissible under Order II Rule 2 CPC.
Court upheld that unauthorized use of a well-known trade mark constitutes infringement, as it can mislead consumers about product sources, affirming the importance of protecting brand reputation.
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.