Introduction: The case of IndiaMART InterMESH Ltd. Vs. Puma SE addresses the critical interface between trademark protection under the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and intermediary liability under the Information Technology Act, 2000. The principal dispute revolved around whether the inclusion of a registered trademark in the drop-down menu for product listings on an online platform amounts to infringement and if the operator of such a platform can seek immunity under the safe harbour provisions of the IT Act. This case examines the obligations of digital intermediaries when enabling product descriptions that involve reputed trademarks and clarifies the applicability of safe harbour protection in such contexts.
Factual Background: Puma SE, a reputed global manufacturer of sportswear and accessories, owns several registered trademarks in India, including the word mark “PUMA” and various device marks. Puma operates in India through its subsidiary Puma Sports India Pvt. Ltd. In 2021, Puma noticed listings on the IndiaMART platform offering counterfeit goods bearing its trademark. IndiaMART InterMESH Ltd., the appellant, is the operator of <www.indiamart.com>, an online B2B platform that enables businesses to list products and services for sale. As part of its seller registration process, IndiaMART offers drop-down menus that allow sellers to choose brand names, including “PUMA,” to describe their goods.
Puma contended that counterfeiters were exploiting this drop-down feature to misrepresent fake products as genuine Puma merchandise. It argued that IndiaMART, by allowing such use of the mark “PUMA” in its system, was facilitating and abetting trademark infringement and passing off.
Procedural Background: Puma SE instituted a suit for permanent injunction, damages, and other reliefs before the Delhi High Court, seeking to restrain IndiaMART from using the mark “PUMA” in any manner, including in its drop-down menu for seller listings. The Single Judge of the Delhi High Court passed an order on 03.01.2024 granting interim relief in favour of Puma, holding that IndiaMART's use of “PUMA” in the drop-down menu constituted trademark infringement under Sections 29(1), (2), and (4) of the Trade Marks Act. The Single Judge also held that IndiaMART could not claim protection under Section 79 of the IT Act. Aggrieved by this order, IndiaMART filed an intra-court appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi.
Legal Issue: The principal legal issue was whether IndiaMART’s inclusion of the trademark “PUMA” in a drop-down menu for product description constituted “use” of the mark under the Trade Marks Act, 1999, and if so, whether such use amounted to trademark infringement? A related issue was whether IndiaMART, as an intermediary, could claim exemption from liability under Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000?
Discussion on Judgments
The Single Judge heavily relied on the Division Bench decision in Google LLC v. DRS Logistics (P) Ltd. & Ors., 2023:DHC:5615-DB. In that case, the use of registered trademarks as keywords in Google's advertising platform was held to constitute “use” under the Trade Marks Act, and it was held that even backend use (not visible to consumers) could amount to trademark use. This precedent was invoked to support the proposition that IndiaMART’s use of “PUMA” in the drop-down menu amounted to “use in advertising” under Section 29(6)(d) of the Trade Marks Act.
The case of Renaissance Hotel Holdings Inc. v. B. Vijaya Sai and Ors., (2022) 5 SCC 1 was cited by IndiaMART to argue that Section 29(4) of the Trade Marks Act would not apply when the infringing use is for similar goods. The Supreme Court in that case held that Section 29(4) applies only when the infringing goods are dissimilar, and the three cumulative conditions under that section must be satisfied.
Puma also relied on Lifestyle Equities CV & Anr. v. Amazon Technologies Inc. & Ors., 2025:DHC:1231 to demonstrate how online platforms may be held accountable for infringement if they exercise control or benefit from listings that infringe trademarks. However, the Division Bench distinguished this judgment on facts, noting that in Amazon Technologies, the platform directly controlled branding and had commercial ties with the infringing seller, unlike IndiaMART’s hands-off listing process.
Reasoning and Analysis of the Judge: The Division Bench rejected the reasoning of the Single Judge and found that IndiaMART’s platform functioned more as a listing and discovery service rather than an e-commerce website facilitating direct sales. It observed that IndiaMART did not consummate transactions and acted merely as a conduit for third-party listings. The drop-down menu was a user-interface feature aimed at improving product description accuracy and searchability, not an active representation of the goods by IndiaMART.
The Court accepted IndiaMART’s contention that the drop-down feature was intended to reduce typographical errors and facilitate precise classification. It further held that such inclusion of “PUMA” by IndiaMART, without any direct involvement in the sale or advertisement of products, did not constitute use “as a trademark” by IndiaMART. Instead, the seller using the term to describe goods might be infringing, depending on whether the goods were genuine or counterfeit.
The Court emphasized the importance of Section 30(1) of the Trade Marks Act, which allows descriptive use of a trademark for identification purposes, provided it is in accordance with honest practices and does not take unfair advantage. IndiaMART’s use was found to be in line with this defence.
On the question of intermediary liability, the Court examined Section 79 of the IT Act and held that IndiaMART had not abetted, conspired, or aided any unlawful act as required under Section 79(3)(a). The Court found that IndiaMART had standard grievance redressal and takedown procedures and acted on takedown requests, which showed compliance with its obligations under the IT Act and Rules. Therefore, it was entitled to safe harbour protection.
Final Decision: The Division Bench set aside the order of the Single Judge, holding that IndiaMART’s provision of a drop-down menu with the term “PUMA” did not amount to trademark infringement. The Court ruled that IndiaMART did not use the mark “PUMA” as a trademark and that it was not liable for infringement under Sections 29(1), (2), or (4) of the Trade Marks Act. It further held that IndiaMART was protected under Section 79 of the IT Act as an intermediary, having complied with the requirements of due diligence and takedown.
Law Settled in This Case: This case settles the position that the inclusion of a registered trademark as an option in a drop-down menu on an online listing platform does not by itself constitute trademark infringement. It affirms that such use, if intended solely for accurate classification and discovery, falls within the permissible scope under Section 30(1) of the Trade Marks Act. Furthermore, it reinforces that an intermediary that provides listing services and acts upon takedown requests cannot be held liable for third-party infringement, provided it does not exercise editorial control or derive benefit from infringing content. The decision also distinguishes the scope of “use” under the Trade Marks Act from backend functionalities of intermediary platforms and emphasizes the need to contextualize liability based on the nature of the intermediary’s role.
Case Title: IndiaMART Intermesh Ltd. Vs. PUMA SE Date of Order: June 2, 2025 Case Number: FAO(OS)(COMM) 6/2024 Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC: Name of Court: High Court of Delhi Name of Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vibhu Bakru and Hon'ble Ms. Tara Vitasta Ganju
Disclaimer: The information shared here is intended to serve the public interest by offering insights and perspectives. However, readers are advised to exercise their own discretion when interpreting and applying this information. The content herein is subjective and may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.
Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi
