Intermediary websites exemption

E-commerce websites acting as intermediaries suffered a bad week in the Delhi High Court as three trademark judgments went against them. In Skullcandy Inc vs Shri Shyam Telecom, the high court reiterated its stand on the status of intermediaries in ecommerce. The court had laid down principles earlier this month in its judgment in Christian Louboutin SAS vs Nakul Bajaj. The complaint of Skullcandy, a foreign firm selling phone accessories, was that the website run by the Indian company had been selling counterfeit products misusing its name. It sought an injunction against use of the trademark Skullcandy and the sale of 'Skullcandy' products on the website www.shopclues.com. The high court granted the prayer and imposed restrictions on the website. It stated that the website could not claim exemption under Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, as the role of the website was more than that of an intermediary.

A similar order was passed in the case, Luxottica Group S PA vs Mify Solutions Ltd. The website www.kaunsa.com can not claim the exemption under the IT Act, the judgment asserted while decree in gin favour of Luxot ti ca, which special is es in eye wear. The third case was with regard to the trademark L'Oreal, which was sold through the website www.shopclues.com. In this judgment, L’Orealvs Brand world, the website was denied the exemption available to intermediaries as it was acting more than that role.