$~58

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Date of decision: 28^th August, 2023

+

CS(COMM) 709/2022 and I.A. 16259/2023

TRIOLOGY SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED

..... Plaintiff

Through:

Mr. Anshuman, Advocate.

versus

FLIPKART INTERNET PRIVATE LIMITED, &

ORS.

..... Defendants

Through:

Mr. Sidharth Chopra, Ms. Shilpa

Gupta, Ms. Surabhi Pande, Mr.

Naman Tandon and Ms. Arushi

Mann, Advocates for D-1 (M-

9899509779)

CORAM:

JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH

Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)

1. 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

Digitally Signed

By:DHIRENDER KUMAR

Signing Date:01.09.2023

20:08:00

Signature Not Verified

registered mark ‘MUUCHSTAC’

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:

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.”

Digitally Signed

By:DHIRENDER KUMAR

Signing Date:01.09.2023

20:08:00

Signature Not Verified

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:

….

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.

Digitally Signed

By:DHIRENDER KUMAR

Signing Date:01.09.2023

20:08:00

Signature Not Verified

the next date of hearing.”

8. The Plaintiff had then approached the Ld. Division Bench by way of

an appeal, challenging the non-grant of interim relief. The ld. Division

Bench, vide order dated 26th May 2023, disposed of the appeal against order

dated 31st October 2022 with the following observations:

2. Today, when the matter was taken up, learned

counsel appearing for Triology Solutions apprised the

court that Flipkart in recognition of it being a

registered trademark holder has duly gated its

products and that the latching on feature has been

disabled.

3. In view of the aforesaid, both learned counsels

appearing in the connected appeals state that the

appeals may be disposed of subject