E-Commerce and Trademark Turbulence: Navigating Infringement in Online  Marketplaces

ABSTRACT: Due to the growing population and commercialization, creative ideas and their  implementation are becoming more prominent, which calls for additional protection of  trademarks and the rights of their proprietors.² The rapid growth of e-commerce platforms  such as Amazon and Flipkart has revolutionized consumer access but simultaneously raised  complex legal issues related to trademark infringement. Sellers frequently misuse registered  trademarks to attract buyers, leading to consumer deception and brand dilution. This article  examines the legal framework governing such infringements under the Trademarks Act,  1999, and the intermediary liability shield provided under Section 79 of the Information  Technology Act, 2000. By analyzing landmark cases such as Christian Louboutin v. Nakul  Bajaj and Kent RO Systems v. Amazon Sellers, the paper highlights the evolving judicial  approach to e-commerce-related IP violations. It concludes that while digital marketplaces  enable ease of trade, there is an urgent need for stricter platform accountability and clearer  statutory regulation to ensure trademark protection in the digital age.³

Key Words: Trademark Infringement, Online Marketplaces, E-Commerce Platforms, IT  Act,2000, IPR, IP Protection

Introduction : In Kent RO Systems Ltd. v. Amit Kotak & Ors. (2020),⁴the Delhi High  Court stopped Amazon sellers from misusing the “Kent” trademark to sell counterfeit water  purifiers. The court stressed that such listings harm both consumers and brand owners. This  case reflects the growing issue of trademark misuse on online platforms and the urgent need  for stricter regulation of e-commerce intermediaries.

As digital commerce expands, so does the misuse of registered trademarks by unauthorized  sellers, directly affecting brand reputation and consumer trust. Traditional IP laws, framed for  physical marketplaces, often struggle to keep up with the complexities of intermediary  platforms. In India, the legal vacuum around the liability of e-commerce intermediaries,  combined with the slow pace of enforcement, makes it challenging for trademark holders to  seek timely remedies.

The Act defines infringement under Section 29, which includes the unauthorized use of  identical or deceptively similar marks during trade. However, with the rise of online  commerce, traditional laws have struggled to address new-age challenges posed by digital  platforms. To regulate online intermediaries, the Information Technology Act, 2000,  particularly Section 79, offers a “safe harbour” provision, shielding platforms from liability if  they act only as intermediaries and follow due diligence. 

The objective of this article is to explore how trademark laws apply to online marketplaces,  evaluate platform liability, and suggest reforms to ensure better protection for brand owners  in the digital age.

Research Methodology: This article is based on a doctrinal research approach, relying  primarily on the study and analysis of existing legal texts, including the Trademarks Act,  1999, and the Information Technology Act, 2000. Additionally, scholarly articles,  government reports, and authoritative publications from institutions like WIPO and DPIIT⁵ were consulted to provide a comprehensive understanding of trademark infringement in  online marketplaces. The research also includes a comparative perspective by examining  international legal frameworks to highlight potential reforms for Indian law.

Legal Framework: The protection of trademarks in India is primarily governed by the  Trademarks Act, 1999, which lays down the registration process and defines trademark  infringement under Section 29. This section prohibits unauthorized use of identical or  deceptively similar marks in the course of trade, aiming to prevent consumer confusion and  protect brand identity.

In the context of online marketplaces, the Information Technology Act, 2000⁶, particularly  Section 79, provides a “safe harbour” for intermediaries, shielding e-commerce platforms  from liability for third-party content, provided they observe due diligence and remove  infringing material upon notice.

Additionally, the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, and its E-Commerce Rules, 2020, impose  obligations on online marketplaces to ensure transparency and protect consumer interests,  indirectly supporting trademark enforcement by discouraging counterfeit sales.

While there is no direct constitutional provision⁷specifically addressing trademark  infringement, the protection of intellectual property rights is recognized under Article  19(1)(g), which guarantees the right to practice any profession or carry on any trade, and the  State’s power to regulate trade under Article 19(6). These provisions provide the  constitutional backdrop for IP laws to balance trade freedoms with protection against unfair  practices.

Judicial Interpretation : Indian judiciary has played a crucial role in interpreting the  responsibilities and liabilities of e-commerce platforms in relation to IP rights and consumer  protection.

One of the most significant cases in this context is Christian Louboutin SAS v. Nakul Bajaj &  Ors. (2018),⁸ The Delhi High Court, while dealing with counterfeit luxury products sold  online, held that when an online platform is actively involved in the listing, pricing, If a  provider does not exercise control over goods, it cannot claim safe harbor protection under  Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000. The court observed that such platforms  are more than mere intermediaries and can be held accountable for trademark violations.

Similarly, in Amway India Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. v. 1MG Technologies Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.⁹ (2019), the court addressed the unauthorized sale of Amway products on various online  platforms. It emphasized that selling branded goods without the manufacturer’s consent  amounted to trademark infringement and unfair trade practice. This judgment was pivotal in  shifting the burden of ensuring product authenticity onto e-commerce companies.

In Kent RO Systems Ltd. v. Amit Kotak & Ors. (2017)¹⁰, the court reiterated that if an  intermediary knowingly allows the sale of counterfeit goods, it cannot avail itself of the safe  harbour protection. This reinforced the need for due diligence and active monitoring by  digital marketplaces.

These judgments reflect the Indian judiciary’s evolving approach towards digital commerce  and its attempt to balance technological growth with consumer and IP rights. Thus, judicial  pronouncements have significantly contributed to shaping a stricter and more accountable e commerce environment in India.

Critical Analysis:

Despite existing legal frameworks addressing e-commerce and consumer  protection, significant loopholes and ambiguities remain:

• Jurisdictional Confusion: In cross-border e-commerce transactions, determining jurisdiction is often complex, especially when sellers operate outside India.
• Lack of Specific E-Commerce Legislation: India currently relies on a patchwork of laws like the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and the IT Act, 2000. However, dedicated legislation for digital marketplaces is lacking, making it difficult to regulate  influencer marketing, fake reviews, and product liability.
• Weak Enforcement Mechanism: While the Consumer Protection (E-Commerce) Rules, 2020¹¹ mandate grievance redressal mechanisms, in practice, platforms often delay or ignore resolution, leaving consumers helpless.
• Data Protection Concerns: The absence of a strong data privacy regime leads to misuse of consumer data by online platforms. The Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 is a step forward but awaits effective implementation.
• Comparative View: In contrast, countries like the EU¹² follow the Digital Services Act and Consumer Rights Directive, offering clearer rules and stronger consumer safeguards. These include stricter accountability of marketplaces and opt-in cookie  policies—something India still lags on.

Recent Developments: 

• India has witnessed significant legal and policy shifts in the regulation of digital markets and e-commerce. The Consumer Protection (E-Commerce) Rules, 2020¹³, framed under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, introduced obligations such as  grievance redressal, country-of-origin disclosure, and a ban on unfair trade practices.  These rules aim to strengthen consumer rights in the online marketplace.
• In 2021, the Ministry of Consumer Affairs released draft amendments to tighten rules around flash sales, cross-selling, and related-party entities. While the government claimed these amendments promote fair competition, major industry stakeholders like  Amazon and Flipkart expressed concern over operational complexities and vague  definitions.¹⁴
• Additionally, the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023¹⁵ was enacted to safeguard users’ privacy rights, impacting how e-commerce platforms collect and process consumer data. The law aligns with global standards like GDPR and has  shifted the compliance burden heavily onto digital platforms.
• In parallel, the Open Network for Digital Commerce (ONDC) initiative, launched by DPIIT¹⁶, seeks to democratize e-commerce by breaking platform monopolies and promoting small sellers’ participation. While promising, its implementation faces  infrastructural and trust challenges.
• Public opinion is split — consumer groups welcome greater accountability, while industry players worry about overregulation and bureaucratic delays. The need for balance between innovation and regulation remains central to ongoing policy  discussions.

Way Forward: To effectively combat trademark infringement in e-commerce, India needs  a multi-pronged approach involving legislative reform, judicial activism, and active civil  society participation:

1. Legislative Improvements:

Enact specific e-commerce legislation that clearly defines intermediary liability, mandates  stricter due diligence by online marketplaces, and introduces fast-track mechanisms for IP  disputes. Amendments to the Trade Marks Act should address digital infringements  explicitly, closing loopholes related to platform immunity. 

2. Judicial Role:

Courts must continue evolving their interpretation of intermediary liability to hold platforms  accountable, ensuring remedies are timely and effective. Specialized IP tribunals or fast-track  courts could be established for expeditious resolution of online trademark disputes 

3. Technology & Monitoring:

Platforms should be encouraged (or required) to deploy advanced AI-driven tools to detect  counterfeit or infringing listings proactively. Regular audits and transparency reports can  build trust between consumers, sellers, and platform owners.

4. Civil Society & Consumer Awareness:

NGOs, consumer forums, and industry associations should collaborate to raise public  awareness about counterfeit risks and promote the reporting of infringements. Educating  consumers can reduce demand for fake goods.

5. International Cooperation:

Given the cross-border nature of e-commerce, India must strengthen collaboration with  global IP offices and law enforcement to tackle counterfeit goods trafficking and harmonize  enforcement standards.

Conclusion : Trademark infringement on e-commerce platforms poses a serious threat to  brand integrity, consumer trust, and the overall fairness of the digital marketplace. While  existing laws like the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and the IT Act, 2000 provide a framework for  protection, gaps and ambiguities remain—especially regarding intermediary liability. Judicial  pronouncements have begun addressing these challenges, yet legislative reforms and stronger  enforcement mechanisms are urgently needed. A collaborative effort involving lawmakers,  the judiciary, digital platforms, and civil society is essential to create a balanced ecosystem  that encourages innovation while safeguarding intellectual property rights.

As India’s digital economy continues to grow, the question remains: will the legal system  evolve swiftly enough to protect trademarks in this fast-paced online world?

References : Books and Journals

• WIPO, Intellectual Property and E-Commerce (WIPO Publication No 123E, 2021) https://www.wipo.int/ecommerce accessed 22 July 2025.
• Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade (DPIIT), E-Commerce in India: Issues and Challenges (Report, 2023) https://dpiit.gov.in accessed 23 July 2025.

Case Laws

o Christian Louboutin SAS v Nakul Bajaj & Ors [2018] SCC OnLine Del 13032. o Kent RO Systems Ltd v Amit Kotak & Ors [2017] SCC OnLine Del 7226. o Amway India Enterprises Pvt Ltd v 1MG Technologies Pvt Ltd & Ors [2019] SCC  OnLine Del 9314.

Statutes and Rules

• Trade Marks Act 1999 (India).
• Information Technology Act 2000 (India).
• Consumer Protection Act 2019 (India).
• Consumer Protection (E-Commerce) Rules 2020 (India).
• Digital Personal Data Protection Act 2023 (India).

Official Websites

• Ministry of Consumer Affairs, https://consumeraffairs.nic.in accessed 23 July 2025. • Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade, https://dpiit.gov.in accessed 23 July 2025.

News Reports

• Economic Times, “Trademark rules recast in works to speed up approvals,” (2025) https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/economy/policy/trademark-rules-recast in-works-to-speed-up-approvals/articleshow/122589762.cms accessed 23 July 2025.
• Reuters, “India court orders Amazon to pay $39 million in damages in Beverly Hills Polo Club case,” (2025) https://www.reuters.com/business/retail-consumer/india court-orders-amazon-pay-39-million-damages-beverly-hills-polo-club-case-2025-02- 26 accessed 23 July 2025.

¹Student of BBALLB 4^th year (BPSMV)

² Christian Louboutin Sas v Nakul Bajaj [2018] SCC OnLine Del 13032.

³ No. 1 Int’l JL Mgmt. & Human. 6, 219, 2023

⁴ Kent RO Systems Ltd. v. Amit Kotak & Ors. (2020)

⁵ Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade (DPIIT), E-Commerce in India: Issues and  Challenges (Report, 2023) https://dpiit.gov.in accessed 23 July 2025.

⁶ The Information Technology Act 2000, s 79

⁷ Constitution of India, art 19(1)(g), art 19(6)

⁸ Christian Louboutin SAS v Nakul Bajaj & Ors. [2018] SCC OnLine Del 13032

⁹ Amway India Enterprises Pvt Ltd v 1MG Technologies Pvt Ltd & Ors. [2019] SCC OnLine Del 9314.

¹⁰ Kent RO Systems Ltd v Amit Kotak & Ors. [2017] SCC OnLine Del 7226.

¹¹ Consumer Protection (E-Commerce) Rules 2020, Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Notification GSR 462(E), 23  July 2020.

¹² Directive 2011/83/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on consumer rights  [2011] OJ L304/64.

¹³ Consumer Protection (E-Commerce) Rules, 2020, Ministry of Consumer Affairs,  https://consumeraffairs.nic.in

¹⁴ Draft E-Commerce Rules Amendment, 2021, Press Release, PIB, https://pib.gov.in

¹⁵ Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, Ministry of Electronics and Information  Technology (MeitY), https://meity.gov.in

¹⁶ Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade (DPIIT), ONDC Initiative,  https://dpiit.gov.in