Modern Mold Plast Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Flipkart Internet Pvt. Ltd. & Ors: Trademark Infringement Case

Modern Mold Plast Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Flipkart Internet Pvt. Ltd. & Ors: Trademark Infringement Case. Case Citation:
CS(COMM) 803/2024, decided by the Delhi High Court on September 18, 2024.
Court: Delhi High Court
Presiding Judge: Hon’ble Ms. Justice Mini Pushkarna
Parties:
Plaintiffs:
1. Modern Mold Plast Pvt. Ltd.
2. (Another party as mentioned in the title) 
Defendants:
1. Flipkart Internet Pvt. Ltd.
2. AKS Trading
3. NS Marketing 
Nature of the Suit:
The plaintiffs filed a commercial suit under the following provisions:
1. Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999: For trademark infringement.
2. Sections 51 and 55 of the Copyrights Act, 1957: For copyright infringement.
The reliefs sought included a permanent and mandatory injunction, delivery up, damages, rendition of accounts, and prevention of passing off. 
Facts:
1. The plaintiffs are the proprietors of the trademark “MAHARAJA” and its variations, including "MODERN MAHARAJA," "MUKUT MAHARAJA," "METRO MAHARAJA," and "OMAHARAJA," which they have used since 2009.
2. These trademarks are associated with their business in molded furniture and other goods.
3. The plaintiffs claimed protection under trademark law and copyright law, stating their trademarks/labels had acquired distinctiveness.
4. Although trademark registration applications were filed, registration was delayed due to opposition proceedings.
5. The plaintiffs sell their goods through their website and platforms such as Amazon and Flipkart. 
Grievance:
 The plaintiffs alleged that Flipkart's "latching-on feature" allowed unauthorized sellers, specifically AKS Trading (defendant no. 2) and NS Marketing (defendant no. 3), to misuse the plaintiffs’ listings. These sellers sold products labeled with the plaintiffs' trademarks but were not genuine products of the plaintiffs. Invoices issued by defendants 2 and 3 used the “MAHARAJA” trademark, misrepresenting their goods as originating from the plaintiffs.
Issues:
1. Whether the defendants’ actions constituted trademark and copyright infringement.
2. Whether the latching-on feature of Flipkart could be restrained to prevent unauthorized sellers from exploiting the plaintiffs’ listings.
3. The extent of Flipkart’s liability for such unauthorized actions by third-party sellers. 
Court Observations:
1. Recognition of Prior Use: The plaintiffs’ common law rights over the “MAHARAJA” trademark were established based on prior use and judicial precedents.
-Reference was made to CS(COMM) 144/2021 and an appeal, FAO(COMM) 125/2023, wherein the plaintiffs' prior user rights were upheld.
2. Passing Off and Misrepresentation: The court noted that defendants 2 and 3 were misrepresenting their goods as originating from the plaintiffs by latching onto the plaintiffs’ listings on Flipkart.
3. Platform’s Responsibility: The latching-on feature enabled counterfeit products or misleading claims, affecting the reputation and goodwill of the plaintiffs. 
Judgment:
1. Flipkart was directed to implement its “brand gating” feature for the plaintiffs’ listings to prevent unauthorized sellers from latching onto them.
2. Plaintiffs were instructed to provide their Flipkart Serial Numbers (FSNs) for proper identification of their listings.
3. Flipkart was required to verify any future sellers claiming to sell the plaintiffs’ products and seek confirmation from the plaintiffs if ambiguity arose.
4. Any complaints from the plaintiffs about unauthorized latching-on were to be addressed promptly by Flipkart. 
The plaintiffs expressed satisfaction with these directions and did not press for additional reliefs.
Key Takeaways:
1. Latching-On and E-Commerce: This case highlights how latching-on features in e-commerce platforms can harm brand owners by enabling unauthorized sellers to misrepresent goods.
2. Platform Liability: While Flipkart was not directly selling counterfeit goods, its system facilitated misrepresentation. The court's decision ensured platforms must actively protect genuine sellers’ interests.
3. Trademark Protection: The plaintiffs' prior user rights and consistent use of the “MAHARAJA” trademark played a pivotal role in securing relief.

Case Citation:

CS(COMM) 803/2024, decided by the Delhi High Court on September 18, 2024.

Court: Delhi High Court

Presiding Judge: Hon’ble Ms. Justice Mini Pushkarna

Parties:

Plaintiffs:

1. Modern Mold Plast Pvt. Ltd.

2. (Another party as mentioned in the title)

Defendants:

1. Flipkart Internet Pvt. Ltd.

2. AKS Trading

3. NS Marketing

Nature of the Suit:

The plaintiffs filed a commercial suit under the following provisions:

1. Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999: For trademark infringement.

2. Sections 51 and 55 of the Copyrights Act, 1957: For copyright infringement.

The reliefs sought included a permanent and mandatory injunction, delivery up, damages, rendition of accounts, and prevention of passing off.

Facts:

1. The plaintiffs are the proprietors of the trademark “MAHARAJA” and its variations, including "MODERN MAHARAJA," "MUKUT MAHARAJA," "METRO MAHARAJA," and "OMAHARAJA," which they have used since 2009.

2. These trademarks are associated with their business in molded furniture and other goods.

3. The plaintiffs claimed protection under trademark law and copyright law, stating their trademarks/labels had acquired distinctiveness.

4. Although trademark registration applications were filed, registration was delayed due to opposition proceedings.

5. The plaintiffs sell their goods through their website and platforms such as Amazon and Flipkart.

Grievance:

The plaintiffs alleged that Flipkart's "latching-on feature" allowed unauthorized sellers, specifically AKS Trading (defendant no. 2) and NS Marketing (defendant no. 3), to misuse the plaintiffs’ listings. These sellers sold products labeled with the plaintiffs' trademarks but were not genuine products of the plaintiffs. Invoices issued by defendants 2 and 3 used the “MAHARAJA” trademark, misrepresenting their goods as originating from the plaintiffs.

Issues:

1. Whether the defendants’ actions constituted trademark and copyright infringement.

2. Whether the latching-on feature of Flipkart could be restrained to prevent unauthorized sellers from exploiting the plaintiffs’ listings.

3. The extent of Flipkart’s liability for such unauthorized actions by third-party sellers.

Court Observations:

1. Recognition of Prior Use: The plaintiffs’ common law rights over the “MAHARAJA” trademark were established based on prior use and judicial precedents.

-Reference was made to CS(COMM) 144/2021 and an appeal, FAO(COMM) 125/2023, wherein the plaintiffs' prior user rights were upheld.

2. Passing Off and Misrepresentation: The court noted that defendants 2 and 3 were misrepresenting their goods as originating from the plaintiffs by latching onto the plaintiffs’ listings on Flipkart.

3. Platform’s Responsibility: The latching-on feature enabled counterfeit products or misleading claims, affecting the reputation and goodwill of the plaintiffs.

Judgment:

1. Flipkart was directed to implement its “brand gating” feature for the plaintiffs’ listings to prevent unauthorized sellers from latching onto them.

2. Plaintiffs were instructed to provide their Flipkart Serial Numbers (FSNs) for proper identification of their listings.

3. Flipkart was required to verify any future sellers claiming to sell the plaintiffs’ products and seek confirmation from the plaintiffs if ambiguity arose.

4. Any complaints from the plaintiffs about unauthorized latching-on were to be addressed promptly by Flipkart.

The plaintiffs expressed satisfaction with these directions and did not press for additional reliefs.

Key Takeaways:

1. Latching-On and E-Commerce: This case highlights how latching-on features in e-commerce platforms can harm brand owners by enabling unauthorized sellers to misrepresent goods.

2. Platform Liability: While Flipkart was not directly selling counterfeit goods, its system facilitated misrepresentation. The court's decision ensured platforms must actively protect genuine sellers’ interests.

3. Trademark Protection: The plaintiffs' prior user rights and consistent use of the “MAHARAJA” trademark played a pivotal role in securing relief.