Ahlawat & Associates’ Post

https://lnkd.in/gi83CTQn # E-Commerce Platforms Must Protect Intellectual Property Rights Of Sellers, Can't Become Safe Haven For Infringers: Delhi High Court #Section79(3) states that Section 79(1) of the Information Technology Act would not apply if the intermediary has conspired, abetted, aided, or induced, whether by threats or promise or otherwise, in the commission of an unlawful act. There may be no positive evidence to indicate conspiracy, abetment, or inducement by IIL in peddling the counterfeit goods on its website. However, by allowing the prospective seller to register themselves without any prior verification, it can prima facie be said that IIL has aided the commission of the unlawful act of counterfeiting, using its platform as a springboard for the purpose. Aiding is a step before abetting. Providing an avenue for counterfeiting is also, prima facie, aiding in the misdemeanour. #cyberlaw #duediliguence#ILrules compliance

E-Commerce Platforms Are Required To Give Full Seller Details And Cannot Be Used To Enable Intellectual Property Infringement: Delhi High Court https://lnkd.in/g7Hc_the #legal #legalnews #legalnewsposting #lawstudents #lawschool #desikaanoon

***Protecting Intellectual Property Rights in E-commerce: Delhi High Court Sets Precedent*** In a recent ruling, the Delhi High Court emphasized that e-commerce platforms are not immune to protecting intellectual property rights and must not become havens for infringers. Justice C Hari Shankar remarked that while e-commerce sites pursue profits, they must also vigilantly safeguard the intellectual property rights of others. The court's observations came during a case where it restrained Indiamart from featuring registered trademarks of PUMA as search options for prospective sellers. The court highlighted that allowing infringers and counterfeiters to thrive for financial gains is unacceptable. Justice Shankar asserted, "An e-commerce platform cannot become a haven for infringers. Where easy money is visible, the conscience at times takes a nap." The interim injunction, favoring PUMA in its trademark infringement suit, directed Indiamart to promptly remove all listings containing PUMA's registered trademarks related to goods on its platform. PUMA argued that counterfeit goods with fake "Puma" marks were displayed when searching for "PUMA" on Indiamart. The court stressed that providing "Puma" as a drop-down menu option during seller registration constitutes the "use of a mark" under the Trade Marks Act. Indiamart, as an intermediary, is obligated under the IT Rules 2023 to make reasonable efforts to prevent infringing content and the sale of counterfeit goods on its platform. Justice Shankar further clarified that the injunction is not indefinite. Indiamart can seek modification or vacation of the order by demonstrating effective regulatory measures to prevent platform abuse by counterfeiters. This ruling underscores the need for e-commerce platforms to actively combat intellectual property infringement, reinforcing the balance between commercial interests and protecting the rights of trademark owners. #sradvisors #delhihighcourt #ipr #counterfeiting

Lot of brands today are deploying sophisticated tools to scrutinize e-commerce platforms, social media marketplaces and websites to address counterfeit goods and trademark infringements. While some of these software systems are highly advanced, human expertise remains indispensable, as technology alone cannot match the nuanced judgment of experienced professionals in IPR. The long-term objective should be to continually enhance the intelligence and reliability of these tools. However, in the current scenario, a comprehensive strategy that integrates innovative technology with expert oversight is crucial for effective brand protection, and protecting your intellectual property in digital space. #trademarks #brandprotection #ipr #legal #digitalpr #socialmedia #ecommerce #legal #infringement

E-Commerce Platforms Must Protect Intellectual Property Rights Of Sellers, Can't Become Safe Haven For Infringers: Delhi High Court Top StoriesNews UpdatesColumnsInterviewsForeign/InternationalRTIKnow the LawLaw SchoolsLaw FirmsJob UpdatesBook ReviewsEvents CornerVideosSponsoredContact UsAdvertise with UsRound UpsIBC NewsEnvironmentCartoonsTaxArbitrationConsumer Cases Home > High Courts > Delhi High Court > E-Commerce Platforms Must... E-Commerce Platforms Must Protect Intellectual Property Rights Of Sellers, Can't Become Safe Haven For Infringers: Delhi High Court By - Nupur ThapliyalUpdate: 2024-01-06 05:00 GMT E-Commerce Platforms Must Protect Intellectual Property Rights Of Sellers, Cant Become Safe Haven For Infringers: Delhi High Court Click the Play button to listen to article The Delhi High Court has observed that an e-commerce platform cannot become haven for infringers and it must protect the intellectual property rights of others. “E-commerce websites are commercial ventures, and are inherently profit oriented. There is, of course, nothing objectionable in this; but, while ensuring their highest returns, such websites have also to sedulously protect intellectual property rights of others,” Justice C Hari Shankar said. The court observed that such platforms cannot, in order to further their financial gains, put in place a protocol by which infringers and counterfeiters are provided an avenue to infringe and counterfeit. Observing that any such protocol has to meet with firm judicial disapproval, the court said: “An e-commerce platform cannot become a haven for infringers. Men are not angels. Where easy money is visible, the conscience at times takes a nap.” The court made the observations while restraining e-commerce platform Indiamart from providing the registered trade marks of PUMA in respect of the goods as search options in its drop down menu presented to prospective sellers at the time of their registration on the platform. While passing interim injunction in favour of PUMA in its trademark infringement suit, the court also directed Indiamart to forthwith take down all infringing listings containing any of PUMA's registered trade marks relating to goods being sold on its platform. It was PUMA's case that on searching the word “PUMA” on India's search option, various counterfeit goods bearing fake “Puma” marks put up by third-party sellers were displayed for purchase. Justice Shankar observed that though the “Puma shoes” option provided in the drop down menu was visible only to the seller at the time of registering himself with the platform, the providing of the option itself constituted “use of a mark” of PUMA within the meaning of the Trade Marks Act. (2)(b) and 2(2)(c)(i) of the Trade Marks Act,” the court said. ,

Navigating the complexities of secondary trademark liability in US e-commerce is crucial for both brand owners and online platforms. The Inwood v. Ives Laboratories, Inc., 456 U.S. 844 (1982) standard establishes that producers or sellers are liable if they knowingly facilitate trademark infringement. This principle has been applied to online giants like eBay, where the court ruled they weren't intentionally blind to counterfeit items. Search engines, however, face less scrutiny, but may be held liable for infringements linked to keywords. The current e-commerce landscape sees a surge in counterfeiting, prompting the USPTO to seek feedback on contributory trademark infringement in the digital realm. Recent legislative efforts like the SHOP SAFE Act aim to hold online platforms accountable by imposing stringent verification measures on third-party vendors. While awaiting congressional action, brands and platforms alike must stay vigilant in addressing counterfeit challenges in the evolving e-commerce market. Discover the in-depth perspectives on the "Secondary Liability Regime in USA under Trademark Infringement Liability in E-commerce." Delve into the article for comprehensive insights. Your thoughts are welcomed. Read now! 😄 #usa #trademark #trademarklaw #digital #technology #ecommerce #intellectualpropertylaw #infringement #onlineplatforms #insights #trademarkinfringement #blogpost #article

🛡️ Sometimes, a trademark isn’t enough to protect your brand from online infringements. Houndsy faced a major challenge when sophisticated counterfeiters began replicating their unique dog feeder designs. These knock-offs avoided using Houndsy’s trademarked name, logo, or photos, making them tough to take down. That’s when we stepped in to help. Our customer service teams introduced Houndsy to Amazon’s APEX program and worked alongside them, guiding Houndsy through the process of using their U.S. utility patents to remove the counterfeit listings--and "quarterbacked it beautifully," according to Houndsy: “We submitted our U.S. utility patents to the APEX program, and after careful review, they determined that those counterfeit listings were infringing on our patents and swiftly removed them. This set a precedent for future listings as well. Because we successfully verified our patents, we’ve been able to quickly shut down future counterfeiters on Amazon.” - Pavan Bapu, CEO of Houndsy Read more about the APEX Program and how to use patents for enforcement on Amazon here: https://lnkd.in/ehDBxWMZ

As a business owner, navigating IP rights to protect your brand online can be overwhelming. Even with everything in place, removing dupes isn’t always straightforward, especially when they’re not technically infringing on copyright or trademark laws. Patents are often not recognized by marketplaces without court orders, and pursuing litigation for a single listing is impractical when sellers can easily reappear under a new account. Amazon’s APEX program is tackling this challenge head-on, collaborating with brands to simplify the process. Hoping other marketplaces will follow suit to better support businesses and their original ideas! If you're experiencing infringements online and you have a patent on your product, I definitely recommend you use this program to safeguard your brand. Reach out if you have questions 😊

Learn how to protect your brand on Amazon and tackle trademark infringement violations with this comprehensive guide for ecommerce sellers: @RachelRofeBusinessTips