TIBRA COLLECTION ….. Plaintiff
Versus
FASHNEAR TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS. ….. Defendants
Date of Order:- 27.09.2023
The case of the Plaintiff was that the Plaintiff is a retailer in clothing items for men and women. It specializes in ethnic wear, which are designed by its own in-house designers.
It offers for sale and advertises its goods on various E-Commerce platforms as well, such as Amazon, Flipkart and Meesho.
The Plaintiff claimed to be having sufficient presence even on social media platforms and its gross turnover for the year 2022-23 is over Rs.10 crores.
The present suit was filed by the Plaintiff for copyright infringement, passing off, delivery up and other reliefs including damages through its sole proprietor against Defendant Nos.2 to 6 and unknown Defendant No.7, who are advertising, publishing and offering for sale the garments, which are a complete copy of the Plaintiff’s garments and are also misusing the photographs and images in which the Plaintiff owns rights.
The Defendant No.1 is Fashnear Technologies Private Limited Meesho in the present case is the company which runs www.meesho.com, the e-commerce platform. Defendant Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 are unlawful and unauthorized operators who use Plaintiff’s copyrighted pictures and photographs and sell their own counterfeit goods thereunder on the online platform owned, run, managed and administered by Defendant No. 1. Defendant No.7- Ashok Kumar (John Doe) are unknown identities that may be one or various unlawful parties who are using Plaintiff’s product images to sell products.
SUBMISSION BY PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL
Counsel for the Plaintiff submitted the present case is filed to protect Plaintiff’s photographs against illegal use.
It was submitted that Defendants are going to the extent of imitating the products as also copying the identical photographs, but under-pricing the goods so as to cause monetary damage to the Plaintiff.
A large number of products, which have been imitated, was produced in the Court. The product of the Defendants is claimed to be of lower quality, though it is completely imitative in appearance, to the Plaintiff’s product.
It was highlighted that the Defendants don’t even disclose the complete address on the invoice, which is generated.
Difficult to trace the Defendants
It was difficult to trace the Defendants because the addresses on the invoice, on the GST platform and other E – Commerce platforms such as Amazon, Flipkart and Meesho are all different. Listings in the JustDial also reflect different addresses and most of the addresses are incomplete.
Counsel for Defendant no.1 (Meesho)
Counsel appearing for the Defendant No.1 Meesho submitted that as an intermediary the obligation of Meesho is to ensure that whenever any URLs are communicated to Meesho of look-alike images and products, the same are taken down upon the order being passed by the Court. It was further submitted that the details of the Defendants sellers are available whenever the products are delivered and also can be verified from the GST platform.
Hon’ble Delhi High Court obervations
Court said, that perusal of evidence filed shows that this is a case where the Defendant Nos.2 to 6 and unknown Defendant No.7 are completely misusing Plaintiff’s product images, listing images, product design in order to monetarily ride on the reputation of the Plaintiff.
Court said, that the sellers do not have any right to copy the photographs, images, product design of the Plaintiff in this manner and cause damage to the Plaintiff. While E-Commerce provide new platforms for small designers and businesses, the same ought not to be misused for the purposes of imitating and producing look alike products thereby violating the intellectual property rights of the Plaintiff.
The obligation upon the E-Commerce platform is to ensure that the complete details of the sellers are available on the platform so that the consumer is aware of the sellers from whom the product has been purchased and the entity, who is listing the product.
Consumer Protection (ECommerce) Rules, 2020, notified on 23rd July, 2020, imposes an obligation as per section 5, 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 prepurchase stage.
Court said, under these circumstances and considering the complete imitation, which has been indulged by the Defendant Nos.2 to 6 and unknown Defendant, the Plaintiff has made out a case for grant of an ex-parte interim injunction. It is also in the interest of consumers that such look-alike products are not permitted to be sold. Balance of convenience is also in favour of the Plaintiff. Irreparable harm would be caused if the injunction is not granted, as on such platforms, it is extremely easy for sellers to proliferate the images and continue to dupe customers.
Accordingly, following directions were issued in the matter:-
a) Defendant No.1 Meesho.com shall reveal all the available details of the said 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.
b) Defendant No.1 shall ensure that the geographic address of all the sellers is clearly generated with the invoice, which is published on the platform.
c) Defendant Nos.2 to 6 and other sellers, who are listing their products on Meesho.com platform are restrained from reproducing, copying, publishing and imitating any of the designs of the Plaintiff’s clothes or even reproducing the images including the photographs of the Plaintiff.
d) Defendants are also restrained from copying the Plaintiff’s designs.
e) Plaintiff shall give a complete list of infringing URLs to Defendant No.1 within five working days in order to enable Defendant No.1 to take down the said listings. The said taking down shall be carried out within 72 hours.
f) If there are any payments, which are still to be made by the Defendant No.1 to the sellers, the same shall be held back till further orders.
Read, Reviewed and Edited by
Neeraj Gogia, Advocate