{"id":5577,"date":"2025-06-30T07:10:45","date_gmt":"2025-06-30T07:10:45","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/?p=5577"},"modified":"2025-07-01T09:36:52","modified_gmt":"2025-07-01T09:36:52","slug":"indiamart-vs-puma-trademark-infringement-intermediary-liability","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/indiamart-vs-puma-trademark-infringement-intermediary-liability\/","title":{"rendered":"Inclusion of Registered Marks in Drop-Down Menus: A Non-Infringing Act"},"content":{"rendered":"<h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"IndiaMART_InterMESH_Ltd_vs_Puma_SE\"><\/span>IndiaMART InterMESH Ltd. v\/s Puma SE<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>The case of <strong>IndiaMART InterMESH Ltd. Vs. Puma SE<\/strong> addresses the critical interface between trademark protection under the <em>Trade Marks Act, 1999<\/em> and intermediary liability under the <em>Information Technology Act, 2000<\/em>. The principal dispute revolved around whether the inclusion of a registered trademark in the drop-down menu for product listings on an online platform amounts to infringement and if the operator of such a platform can seek immunity under the safe harbour provisions of the IT Act. This case examines the obligations of digital intermediaries when enabling product descriptions that involve reputed trademarks and clarifies the applicability of safe harbour protection in such contexts.<\/p><div id=\"ez-toc-container\" class=\"ez-toc-v2_0_83 counter-hierarchy ez-toc-counter ez-toc-grey ez-toc-container-direction\">\n<div class=\"ez-toc-title-container\">\n<p class=\"ez-toc-title\" style=\"cursor:inherit\">Table of Contents<\/p>\n<span class=\"ez-toc-title-toggle\"><a href=\"#\" class=\"ez-toc-pull-right ez-toc-btn ez-toc-btn-xs ez-toc-btn-default ez-toc-toggle\" aria-label=\"Toggle Table of Content\"><span class=\"ez-toc-js-icon-con\"><span class=\"\"><span class=\"eztoc-hide\" style=\"display:none;\">Toggle<\/span><span class=\"ez-toc-icon-toggle-span\"><svg style=\"fill: #0c0c0c;color:#0c0c0c\" xmlns=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2000\/svg\" class=\"list-377408\" width=\"20px\" height=\"20px\" viewBox=\"0 0 24 24\" fill=\"none\"><path d=\"M6 6H4v2h2V6zm14 0H8v2h12V6zM4 11h2v2H4v-2zm16 0H8v2h12v-2zM4 16h2v2H4v-2zm16 0H8v2h12v-2z\" fill=\"currentColor\"><\/path><\/svg><svg style=\"fill: #0c0c0c;color:#0c0c0c\" class=\"arrow-unsorted-368013\" xmlns=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2000\/svg\" width=\"10px\" height=\"10px\" viewBox=\"0 0 24 24\" version=\"1.2\" baseProfile=\"tiny\"><path d=\"M18.2 9.3l-6.2-6.3-6.2 6.3c-.2.2-.3.4-.3.7s.1.5.3.7c.2.2.4.3.7.3h11c.3 0 .5-.1.7-.3.2-.2.3-.5.3-.7s-.1-.5-.3-.7zM5.8 14.7l6.2 6.3 6.2-6.3c.2-.2.3-.5.3-.7s-.1-.5-.3-.7c-.2-.2-.4-.3-.7-.3h-11c-.3 0-.5.1-.7.3-.2.2-.3.5-.3.7s.1.5.3.7z\"\/><\/svg><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a><\/span><\/div>\n<nav><ul class='ez-toc-list ez-toc-list-level-1 ' ><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-1\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/indiamart-vs-puma-trademark-infringement-intermediary-liability\/#IndiaMART_InterMESH_Ltd_vs_Puma_SE\" >IndiaMART InterMESH Ltd. v\/s Puma SE<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-2\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/indiamart-vs-puma-trademark-infringement-intermediary-liability\/#Factual_Background\" >Factual Background<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-3\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/indiamart-vs-puma-trademark-infringement-intermediary-liability\/#Procedural_Background\" >Procedural Background<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-4\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/indiamart-vs-puma-trademark-infringement-intermediary-liability\/#Legal_Issue\" >Legal Issue<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-5\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/indiamart-vs-puma-trademark-infringement-intermediary-liability\/#Discussion_on_Judgments\" >Discussion on Judgments<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-6\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/indiamart-vs-puma-trademark-infringement-intermediary-liability\/#Reasoning_and_Analysis_of_the_Judge\" >Reasoning and Analysis of the Judge<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-7\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/indiamart-vs-puma-trademark-infringement-intermediary-liability\/#Final_Decision\" >Final Decision<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-8\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/indiamart-vs-puma-trademark-infringement-intermediary-liability\/#Law_Settled_in_This_Case\" >Law Settled in This Case<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-9\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/indiamart-vs-puma-trademark-infringement-intermediary-liability\/#Case_Details\" >Case Details<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/nav><\/div>\n\n<h3><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Factual_Background\"><\/span>Factual Background<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>Puma SE, a reputed global manufacturer of sportswear and accessories, owns several registered trademarks in India, including the word mark \u201cPUMA\u201d and various device marks. Puma operates in India through its subsidiary Puma Sports India Pvt. Ltd. In 2021, Puma noticed listings on the IndiaMART platform offering counterfeit goods bearing its trademark.<\/p>\n<p>IndiaMART InterMESH Ltd., the appellant, operates <a href=\"http:\/\/www.indiamart.com\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">www.indiamart.com<\/a>, an online B2B platform that enables businesses to list products and services for sale. As part of its seller registration process, IndiaMART offers drop-down menus that allow sellers to choose brand names, including \u201cPUMA,\u201d to describe their goods.<\/p>\n<p>Puma contended that counterfeiters were exploiting this drop-down feature to misrepresent fake products as genuine Puma merchandise. It argued that IndiaMART, by allowing such use of the mark \u201cPUMA\u201d in its system, was facilitating and abetting trademark infringement and passing off.<\/p>\n<h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Procedural_Background\"><\/span>Procedural Background<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>Puma SE instituted a suit for permanent injunction, damages, and other reliefs before the Delhi High Court, seeking to restrain IndiaMART from using the mark \u201cPUMA\u201d in any manner, including in its drop-down menu for seller listings.<\/p>\n<p>The Single Judge of the Delhi High Court passed an order on <strong>03.01.2024<\/strong> granting interim relief in favour of Puma, holding that IndiaMART&#8217;s use of \u201cPUMA\u201d in the drop-down menu constituted trademark infringement under Sections 29(1), (2), and (4) of the Trade Marks Act. The Single Judge also held that IndiaMART could not claim protection under Section 79 of the IT Act. Aggrieved by this order, IndiaMART filed an intra-court appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi.<\/p>\n<h3><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Legal_Issue\"><\/span>Legal Issue<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>The principal legal issue was whether IndiaMART\u2019s inclusion of the trademark \u201cPUMA\u201d in a drop-down menu for product description constituted \u201cuse\u201d of the mark under the <em>Trade Marks Act, 1999<\/em>, and if so, whether such use amounted to trademark infringement. A related issue was whether IndiaMART, as an intermediary, could claim exemption from liability under Section 79 of the <em>Information Technology Act, 2000<\/em>.<\/p>\n<h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Discussion_on_Judgments\"><\/span>Discussion on Judgments<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>The Single Judge heavily relied on the Division Bench decision in <strong>Google LLC v. DRS Logistics (P) Ltd. &amp; Ors., 2023:DHC:5615-DB<\/strong>. In that case, the use of registered trademarks as keywords in Google&#8217;s advertising platform was held to constitute \u201cuse\u201d under the Trade Marks Act. It was held that even backend use (not visible to consumers) could amount to trademark use.<\/p>\n<p>IndiaMART cited <strong>Renaissance Hotel Holdings Inc. v. B. Vijaya Sai and Ors., (2022) 5 SCC 1<\/strong> to argue that Section 29(4) of the Trade Marks Act would not apply when the infringing use is for similar goods. The Supreme Court in that case held that Section 29(4) applies only when the infringing goods are dissimilar, and the three cumulative conditions under that section must be satisfied.<\/p>\n<p>Puma also relied on <strong>Lifestyle Equities CV &amp; Anr. v. Amazon Technologies Inc. &amp; Ors., 2025:DHC:1231<\/strong> to demonstrate how online platforms may be held accountable for infringement if they exercise control or benefit from listings that infringe trademarks. However, the Division Bench distinguished this judgment on facts, noting that in <em>Amazon Technologies<\/em>, the platform directly controlled branding and had commercial ties with the infringing seller, unlike IndiaMART\u2019s hands-off listing process.<\/p>\n<h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Reasoning_and_Analysis_of_the_Judge\"><\/span>Reasoning and Analysis of the Judge<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>The Division Bench rejected the reasoning of the Single Judge and found that IndiaMART\u2019s platform functioned more as a listing and discovery service rather than an e-commerce website facilitating direct sales. It observed that IndiaMART did not consummate transactions and acted merely as a conduit for third-party listings.<\/p>\n<p>The drop-down menu was a user-interface feature aimed at improving product description accuracy and searchability, not an active representation of the goods by IndiaMART. The Court accepted IndiaMART\u2019s contention that the drop-down feature was intended to reduce typographical errors and facilitate precise classification.<\/p>\n<p>It further held that such inclusion of \u201cPUMA\u201d by IndiaMART, without any direct involvement in the sale or advertisement of products, did not constitute use \u201cas a trademark\u201d by IndiaMART. Instead, the seller using the term to describe goods might be infringing, depending on whether the goods were genuine or counterfeit.<\/p>\n<p>The Court emphasized the importance of Section 30(1) of the Trade Marks Act, which allows descriptive use of a trademark for identification purposes, provided it is in accordance with honest practices and does not take unfair advantage. IndiaMART\u2019s use was found to be in line with this defence.<\/p>\n<p>On the question of intermediary liability, the Court examined Section 79 of the IT Act and held that IndiaMART had not abetted, conspired, or aided any unlawful act as required under Section 79(3)(a). The Court found that IndiaMART had standard grievance redressal and takedown procedures and acted on takedown requests, which showed compliance with its obligations under the IT Act and Rules. Therefore, it was entitled to safe harbour protection.<\/p>\n<h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Final_Decision\"><\/span>Final Decision<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>The Division Bench set aside the order of the Single Judge, holding that IndiaMART\u2019s provision of a drop-down menu with the term \u201cPUMA\u201d did not amount to trademark infringement. The Court ruled that IndiaMART did not use the mark \u201cPUMA\u201d as a trademark and that it was not liable for infringement under Sections 29(1), (2), or (4) of the Trade Marks Act. It further held that IndiaMART was protected under Section 79 of the IT Act as an intermediary, having complied with the requirements of due diligence and takedown.<\/p>\n<h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Law_Settled_in_This_Case\"><\/span>Law Settled in This Case<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>This case settles the position that the inclusion of a registered trademark as an option in a drop-down menu on an online listing platform does not by itself constitute trademark infringement. It affirms that such use, if intended solely for accurate classification and discovery, falls within the permissible scope under Section 30(1) of the Trade Marks Act.<\/p>\n<p>Furthermore, it reinforces that an intermediary that provides listing services and acts upon takedown requests cannot be held liable for third-party infringement, provided it does not exercise editorial control or derive benefit from infringing content. The decision also distinguishes the scope of \u201cuse\u201d under the Trade Marks Act from backend functionalities of intermediary platforms and emphasizes the need to contextualize liability based on the nature of the intermediary\u2019s role.<\/p>\n<h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Case_Details\"><\/span>Case Details<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<ul>\n<li><strong>Case Title:<\/strong> IndiaMART Intermesh Ltd. Vs. PUMA SE<\/li>\n<li><strong>Date of Order:<\/strong> June 2, 2025<\/li>\n<li><strong>Case Number:<\/strong> FAO(OS)(COMM) 6\/2024<\/li>\n<li><strong>Neutral Citation:<\/strong> 2025:DHC:<\/li>\n<li><strong>Name of Court:<\/strong> High Court of Delhi<\/li>\n<li><strong>Name of Judge:<\/strong> Hon&#8217;ble Mr. Justice Vibhu Bakru and Hon&#8217;ble Ms. Tara Vitasta Ganju<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n<b>Disclaimer:<\/b><br>\nThe information shared here is intended to serve the public interest by offering insights and perspectives. However, readers are advised to exercise their own discretion when interpreting and applying this information. The content herein is subjective and may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.<br>\n<b><br>\nWritten By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman<\/b>, IP Adjutor &#8211; Patent and \nTrademark Attorney<br>\nEmail: ajayamitabhsuman@gmail.com, Ph no: 9990389539\n\n\n<p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>IndiaMART InterMESH Ltd. v\/s Puma SE The case of IndiaMART InterMESH Ltd. Vs. Puma SE addresses the critical interface between trademark protection under the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and intermediary liability under the Information Technology Act, 2000. The principal dispute revolved around whether the inclusion of a registered trademark in the drop-down menu for product<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":56,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_bbp_topic_count":0,"_bbp_reply_count":0,"_bbp_total_topic_count":0,"_bbp_total_reply_count":0,"_bbp_voice_count":0,"_bbp_anonymous_reply_count":0,"_bbp_topic_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_reply_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_forum_subforum_count":0,"two_page_speed":[],"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"_joinchat":[],"footnotes":""},"categories":[21],"tags":[336],"class_list":{"0":"post-5577","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","6":"category-intellectual-property","7":"tag-delhi-high-court"},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5577","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/56"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=5577"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5577\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5577"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5577"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5577"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}