Delhi High Court: The present suit was filed by plaintiff, Abhi Traders for copyright infringement and passing off, and other reliefs including damages against defendants who were advertising, publishing, and offering for sale, the garments, which were a complete copy of plaintiff’s garments and were also misusing the photographs and images in which plaintiff owned rights. Sanjeev Narula, J., held that plaintiff had made out a case for grant of an ex-parte ad-interim injunction and it was also in the interest of the consumers that such look-alike products were not permitted to be sold. The Court thus prohibited Defendants 2 to 9, along with any other sellers who were showcasing their products on the Meesho.com platform, from reproducing, copying, publishing, or imitating any designs of plaintiff’s clothing. This injunction also extended to the prohibition against reproducing any images related to plaintiff’s products, including photographs.
Background
Plaintiff was a retailer in clothing items for men and women selling it under its mark “IBRANA 
”. They offered for sale and advertised their goods on various E-Commerce platforms like Flipkart and Defendant 1’s platform ‘www.meesho.com’ (‘Meesho’). The said products were advertised and promoted through photographs over which the copyright of plaintiff subsisted. Defendant 1, Fashnear Technologies (P) Ltd was the company which runs ‘www.meesho.com’. Defendants 2- 9 were alleged to be unlawful and unauthorized operators who used plaintiff’s copyrighted pictures and photographs and sell their own counterfeit goods thereunder on the online platform owned, run, managed, and administered by Defendant 1.
Plaintiff submitted that it was the sole manufacturer, promoter, marketer, and seller of the products listed under its own copyrighted pictures and therefore the question of genuine reselling or authorized re-selling did not arise. It was also submitted that it did not authorize Defendants 2 to 10 to use any photographs of its products over which they had copyright. The repeated misuse of plaintiffs copyrighted photographs, published on Defendant 1’s platform showed that Defendants 2 to 10 were riding upon the goodwill and reputation of plaintiff and making unauthorized gains.
Plaintiff submitted that Defendants 2 to 10 were not only replicating plaintiff’s products but were also using identical photographs for marketing purposes and deliberately pricing their goods lower to inflict financial harm on plaintiff. Despite the inferior quality of products of Defendants 2 to 10, their external appearance was remarkably similar to that of plaintiff’s offerings, creating a deceptive semblance of equivalence that misleads consumers.
Counsel for plaintiff submitted that Defendant 1 was under an obligation to publish contact details of all sellers on its platform under Rule 5(3)(a) of Consumer Protection (E-Commerce) Rules, 2020 (‘2020 Rules’). Defendant 1 did not provide any contact information on its website during the transaction process. The omission of essential contact information, combined with the failure to respond to legitimate requests for transparency regarding the entities involved in the sale of counterfeit goods, suggested that Defendant 1 was complicit in the activities of Defendants 2 to 9. Such conduct not only contravened the legal obligations incumbent upon e-marketplaces but also implicated Defendant 1 in aiding and abetting other defendants in their infringing activities. Thus, Defendant 1’s operations, were in violation of the regulatory framework established for e-commerce platforms, thereby disqualifying it from availing itself of the specific immunities provided under Section 79(1) of the Information Technology Act, 2000.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court opined that a prima case was established as defendants were egregiously exploiting plaintiff’s product images, listing visuals, and product designs for their financial gain, leveraging plaintiff’s reputation. Such sellers were unequivocally not entitled to replicate plaintiff’s photographs, images, or product designs, thereby harming plaintiff.
The Court acknowledged the pivotal role of e-commerce platforms in offering new opportunities for small designers and enterprises but opined that it was imperative that these platforms were not exploited to facilitate the imitation of products and the infringement of intellectual property rights. The production of look-alike products, misuse of product images that infringe upon plaintiff’s copyrights undermines the integrity of fair trade and competition, warranting intervention to protect plaintiff’s lawful interests.
The Court opined that there was also an obligation upon the E-Commerce platform to ensure that complete details of the sellers were available on the platform so that the consumer was aware of the sellers from whom the product was purchased and the entity, who was listing the product. The 2020 Rules, notified on 23-7-2020, imposed an obligation on the e-commerce platform to give the full geographic address, customer care number, rating, and other feedback about the seller for enabling consumers to make informed decision at the pre-purchase stage.
The Court held that plaintiff had made out a case for grant of an ex-parte ad-interim injunction and it was also in the interest of the consumers that such look-alike products were not permitted to be sold. The Court opined that irreparable harm would be caused if injunction was not granted, as on online platforms and marketplaces, it was extremely easy for sellers to proliferate the images and continue to dupe customers.
The Court thus prohibited Defendants 2 to 9, along with any other sellers who were showcasing their products on the Meesho.com platform, from reproducing, copying, publishing, or imitating any designs of plaintiff’s clothing. This injunction also extended to the prohibition against reproducing any images related to plaintiff’s products, including photographs. The Court directed Defendant 1 to reveal all the available details of the sellers including the address, mobile numbers, email addresses, total sales made by the sellers, GST details, payments made to the sellers since the time listings have been put up.
The matter would next be listed on 1-8-2024.
[Abhi Traders v. Fashnear Technolgoies (P) Ltd., 2024 SCC OnLine Del 1604, Order dated 29-2-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Plaintiff: Anshuman Upadhyay, Naseem, Apoorva Sharma, Rahul Singh, Sunanda Chowdhury, Advocates
For the Defendants: Sidharth Chopra, Savni Dutt Endlaw, Vivek Ayyagari, R. Ramya, Sanidhya Meheshwari, Advocates
