Intermediaries And Their Liabilities: Analysis Of Christian Louboutin Vs Nakul Bajaj


The advent of e-commerce has revolutionized the way people shop and conduct business. With the ease of online transactions, e-commerce platforms have become an integral part of our daily lives. However, with the rise of e-commerce, trademark infringement issues have also arisen. In India, the e-commerce industry is booming, and the government has implemented various regulations to protect intellectual property rights. This article will discuss the liability of an e-commerce platform as an “intermediary” of trademark rights in India.

E-commerce Platforms: Trademark infringement & Liability

Trademarks are symbols, words, or phrases that distinguish a company’s goods or services from those of others. Trademarks serve as a brand’s identity and are crucial to businesses. Infringement of trademark rights can occur in e-commerce in several ways, such as selling counterfeit goods, using a similar name or logo to deceive customers, or using keywords to promote goods or services.

In India, e-commerce platforms are considered intermediaries under the Information Technology Act, 2000. As intermediaries, e-commerce platforms are not liable for any third-party content unless they have actual knowledge of such content being illegal. However, the e-commerce platform must act expeditiously to remove or disable access to such content once they have received actual knowledge of its illegality.

The liability of an e-commerce platform as an intermediary of trademark rights in India is governed by the provisions of the Trademarks Act, 1999, and the Information Technology Act, 2000.

An e-commerce platform may be liable for trademark infringement under the Trademarks Act if it:

  1. Uses a trademark that is the same as or confusingly similar to a registered trademark.
  2. Uses a mark that is identical to or misleadingly similar to a registered trademark to sell goods or services.
  3. Aids in the distribution of products or services that violate a registered trademark.

In various cases the courts have held that e-commerce platforms are not liable for trademark infringement if they act as a mere facilitator of the sale of goods and services. An e-commerce platform can only be held liable if it has actual knowledge of the infringing activity and has not taken any action to stop it.

Safe harbor provisions

To protect e-commerce platforms from liability, the Information Technology Act, 2000, provides safe harbor provisions under Section 79. Under Section 79, an intermediary is not liable for any third-party information, data, or communication link made available by it if the intermediary:

  1. Does not initiate the transmission or select the receiver of the transmission.
  2. Does not modify the information contained in the transmission.
  3. Observes due diligence while discharging its duties under the Act.

However, the safe harbor provisions are subject to certain exceptions. If an intermediary receives actual knowledge of unlawful content, it must act expeditiously to remove or disable access to such content. Failure to do so may result in the intermediary being held liable for the content.

Christian Louboutin SAS vs Nakul Bajaj & Ors[i]:

Important Facts:

Christian Louboutin, a firm that makes high-end footwear, filed the lawsuit. It asserts that only two retailers in India are permitted by the plaintiff to offer its items, and that only an approved network of exclusive distributors may sell them. On their websites, which use the plaintiff’s brand name and feature their entire product catalogue, the defendants, according to the plaintiff, sell a variety of goods. The commodities that the defendants sell are counterfeits, according to the plaint. The plaintiffs had previously received a temporary injunction prohibiting the defendants from using their e-commerce website to sell, offer for sale, advertise, or otherwise deal in any goods carrying the plaintiffs’ registered brand. The defendants subsequently submitted a written statement in which they assert that they do not sell the items, only permitting customers to book orders through their online platform. When the plaintiff’s real name is used, they contend that they have not copied. The court must interpret Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 in order to determine the defendant’s responsibility as an intermediary.

Issues at Hand:

  1. Does section 79’s “safe harbour” protection apply in this situation?
  2. Does the use of Mega Tags that incorporate the plaintiff’s registered trademark constitute a violation of intellectual property rights?
  • Whether the plaintiff should receive redress from the defendant?


The defendant’s website falls under section 2(w) definition of an intermediary. In some situations, Section 79 of the Information Technology Act offers safe harbour protection to intermediaries alone with regard to content supplied to or sold by third parties, such as Amazon, Flipkart.

The defendant made many points in their written statement, including the claim that they were unaware of the praise for Mr. Christian Louboutin. The Plaintiff and the Defendants have not interacted directly. They also stated that the deal was conducted legally.

The use of the brand’s trademarks on the website is a clear sign of an infringement, according to the plaintiff’s contentions. It was also illegal to use Mega tags that included brand names. Christian Louboutin’s usage of an article on the website plainly varies from the claim of lack of brand knowledge. It also draws attention to the numerous times the company and its founder have been mentioned in articles and pictures.

The court looked at the Google France SARL, Google Inc. v. Louis Vuitton Malletier SA & Ors.[ii] (hereinafter, ‘Google France’),

“the European Court, after reviewing the provisions of the EC Directive 89/104, Directive 2000/31 and Regulation 40/94 which stipulates the rights conferred by a trademark, considered the position of intermediaries. if the service provider, who merely provides the internet reference through a keyword or a sign identical to the trademark, does not violate Article 51 of Director 89/104, or 9(1)(a) and (b) of Regulation 40/94.”

“it is necessary to examine whether the role played by that CS (COMM) 344/2018 Page 17 of 59 service provider is neutral, in the sense that its conduct is merely technical, automatic and passive, pointing to a lack of knowledge or control of the data which it stores.”

[Image Sources : Shutterstock]


The court looked at several decisions and came to the conclusion that the intermediaries’ knowledge of the violation causes the culpability to shift. In a court decision from India, MySpace Inc. v. Super Cassettes Industries Ltd.[iii], this was also declared. There was also discussion of the ideas of constructive knowledge and active knowledge. According to the ruling in the MySpace case, an intermediary does not require a court order to ban a product from utilising their intermediate service even if they are aware of the unlawful activity taking place on their website. It is possible to argue that actions taken even after having some knowledge of the violation constitute an acceptance of the violation committed by the third party, in which case the intermediary would be held accountable.

The Delhi High Court’s own ruling in the case of Kapil Wadhwa v. Samsung Electronics[iv] , which ruled that using meta-tags that include the names of other people’s brands would constitute infringement, was used in the discussion on meta-tags.

“Meta tags are links which are provided using keywords. If a trade
name is used as a keyword and a link is provided, the website comes up whenever a customer searches for the said trade mark. The trade mark used in the code as a keyword is invisible to the end-user or customer. Such use, though invisible to the customer, has been held to be illegal.”

The court ruled that would unquestionably be held accountable even as an intermediary for conveying the illegally obtained products to the consumer. The 2011 IT (intermediaries’ guidelines) rules were also mentioned by the court. The court also emphasised that while the aforementioned intermediary principles are recommended, they should not be the only criteria used to ensure that intermediates receive the necessary protection.


A major decision on the responsibility of intermediaries in cases of trademark infringement may be found in the Christian Louboutin Sas vs. Nakul Bajaj & Ors. case. The court ruled that if the intermediary—in this case, the e-commerce platform—has real knowledge of the trademark-infringing action, it may be held accountable for it. The court further pointed out that once the intermediary gets a notification from the trademark owner, it becomes obligated to stop such infringement.

This case is noteworthy because it makes clear the function and accountability of intermediaries in stopping trademark infringement, particularly in the internet world where such conduct is prevalent. It emphasises the need of intermediaries taking proactive steps to make sure that their platforms are not being utilised for illegal operations.

In conclusion, the ruling in this case serves as a reminder to intermediaries that they must take necessary measures to prevent the sale of counterfeit goods on their platforms. It also emphasises how crucial it is for trademark owners to aggressively defend their intellectual property rights and take the necessary steps to alert third parties to any violations.

Author: Anish Jandial, A Student at Treasurer Centre for Study and Research in Intellectual Property Rights, NUSRL, in case of any queries please contact/write back to us via email to or at Khurana & Khurana, Advocates and IP Attorney.

[i] (2018) 253 DLT 728

[ii] C-236/08 Court of Justice of the European Union (Grand Chamber)

[iii] 236 (2017) DLT 478

[iv] 2013 (53) PTC 112 (Del.)

Leave a Reply



  • June 2024
  • May 2024
  • April 2024
  • March 2024
  • February 2024
  • January 2024
  • December 2023
  • November 2023
  • October 2023
  • September 2023
  • August 2023
  • July 2023
  • June 2023
  • May 2023
  • April 2023
  • March 2023
  • February 2023
  • January 2023
  • December 2022
  • November 2022
  • October 2022
  • September 2022
  • August 2022
  • July 2022
  • June 2022
  • May 2022
  • April 2022
  • March 2022
  • February 2022
  • January 2022
  • December 2021
  • November 2021
  • October 2021
  • September 2021
  • August 2021
  • July 2021
  • June 2021
  • May 2021
  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • September 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010