E-commerce Trademarks: Enforcing Rights in India vs. Southeast Asia Marketplaces

Introduction

The rapid rise of the E-commerce industry has significantly transformed the way business operates, and interacts with the consumers. The globalization of commerce driven by the rise of E-commerce platforms has encouraged consumers to shift from the traditional way to the modern way of doing business. This shift has eased the way of doing business by unlocking new avenues for growth but at the same time has created more legal complexities and challenges.

Let us consider a scenario your brand name plastered across a product listing on an e-commerce site in a country you’ve barely stepped foot in. The product’s clearly fake, the seller’s profile looks shady, and your real product is nowhere in sight. You file a complaint. You wait. Nothing happens. Protecting your trademarks on platforms like Amazon India, Shopee, Lazada, or Flipkart can feel like chasing shadows. It’s not just frustrating — it’s business-critical. Counterfeits dilute your reputation. Infringing listings eat into your sales. And every delay makes your brand look weaker. What works in one country often falls flat in another. You might get quick responses from Amazon India but face dead silence on Shopee in Thailand. Some platforms demand local trademark registration. Others ask for documents you’ve never heard of. Meanwhile, your inbox is filled with customer complaints about poor-quality knockoffs you didn’t sell.^[1]

In this blog, we will explore the trademark enforcement mechanism in the e-commerce industry through the comparative analysis of the Indian law and the laws of the South East Asian countries. We will have a look at how trademark enforcement works on e-commerce platforms in these regions, the approach of these countries in protecting the rights of trademark owners, and the liabilities of the intermediaries.

Legal Position as Per the Indian Law

The liability of E-commerce platforms for content posted by third-party sellers is governed by India’s Information Technology Act. Section 79 of the Act grants these platforms exemption from liability, provided they meet three pre-conditions for availing the immunity from liability, namely^[2]:

The role of an intermediary is strictly limited to facilitating access to a communication network. They simply provide the platform or system through which information, created or uploaded by third parties, is transmitted, temporarily stored, or hosted.

To qualify as a true intermediary, the entity must not engage in the content itself

1. initiate the transmission.

2. choose who receives the content, or

3. alter or influence the content in any way during transmission.

Moreover, an intermediary is expected to act with reasonable care and follow the due diligence requirements laid down by law while carrying out its responsibilities. It must also follow all rules, regulations, and guidelines issued by the Central Government from time to time under its legal authority.^[3]

An intermediary's role is confined to merely enabling access to a communication system, acting as a conduit through which information — uploaded or made available by third parties — is transmitted, stored temporarily, or hosted. It does not originate or interfere with the data it carries.

Additionally, the Central Government, exercising its authority under Section 79 of the IT Act, issued the Information Technology (Intermediaries Guidelines) Rules, 2011.^[4] These rules, among other things, establish the standards of "due diligence" that intermediaries must follow to qualify for safe harbour protection. One such requirement mandates that intermediaries remove any content that either "violates any law currently in force" or "infringes any patent, trademark, copyright, or other proprietary rights" within thirty-six hours of acquiring actual knowledge of such content from the affected individual. The Supreme Court has clarified that "actual knowledge" refers specifically to awareness of a court order, not just a complaint from the aggrieved party.

There is currently no dedicated law that outlines takedown obligations specifically for E-commerce sellers. These sellers are responsible for the products they list and are not considered intermediaries. As a result, a seller may be required to remove an unlawful listing if it violates intellectual property rights. A legal notice can be sent to him by the owner of the trademark such a notice may also direct the seller to refrain from uploading similar unlawful listings in the future. If the seller fails to comply with the notice, the aggrieved party can seek a court order for an injunction and claim damages. The court may issue an injunction directing the seller not only to remove the identified infringing listings but also to prevent them from posting similar listings going forward.

Legal Position as Per the Indonesian Law

The E-commerce holds secondary liability based on Articles 55 and 56 of the Indonesian Criminal Code^[5]. The law provides that anyone who deliberately provides an opportunity may also be liable for the act itself.

Through a circular the government has asked the platforms have to take action based on the report, including to verify the report, remove and/or block prohibited content, send notification to the merchant, provide feature for the merchant to clarify the report or refuse the report for any prohibited content including contents infringing intellectual property rights within 14 working days. For highly prohibited content the UGC platform provider must remove the content 1 day after the report is received.^[6]

Under the Consumer Protection Law, sellers are prohibited from offering goods using misleading or false information. The sellers are required to provide accurate and complete details about their products and/or services and must adhere to applicable laws and regulations. Any content uploaded by sellers to e-commerce platforms is their sole responsibility. However, there is no explicit requirement for sellers to take down such content^[7].

Legal Position as Per the Vietnam Law

Vietnamese law requires platform operators to protect copyrights and other intellectual property rights. under Article 5 of Joint Circular 07, platform operators must remove and delete content that violates copyright and related rights, when it receives a written request from the Inspector of MIC and MOCST, or other state agencies as prescribed by law.  It may also be required to supply information on customers using intermediary services at the request of Inspector of the MIC, the Inspector of the MOCST, or other competent state agencies

According to e-commerce regulations, sellers operating on e-commerce platforms are required to adhere to legal provisions related to payments, advertising, promotions, intellectual property rights, consumer protection, and other applicable laws when offering goods or services. This means sellers must not offer counterfeit products, infringing goods/services, or items included in the list of prohibited goods and services. If requested by the platform or relevant authorities, sellers are obligated to remove such listings or any information deemed illegal.

Legal Position as Per the Singapore Law

Under Singapore law, platform operators are generally not held primarily liable for intellectual property infringement carried out by their users unless they have directly participated in or authorized the infringing activities. Regarding secondary liability, an e-commerce platform may be considered a joint tortfeasor under common law if it can be shown that the platform had knowledge of the infringement. A party that encourages or facilitates another to commit a tort can be treated as a joint tortfeasor. Although there is no case directly on point, the Singapore court judgment^[8] indicates that standard e-commerce marketplaces are typically not held liable for trademark infringement related to user-generated listings. The defendant claimed its website functioned as a marketplace, but the court rejected this argument, noting the defendant had a more active role purchasing goods from Taobao on behalf of users, organizing delivery to Singapore, and then reselling the items.

Therefore, the prevailing legal position in Singapore is that e-commerce platforms may bear liability for trademark infringement if they are aware of infringing content and fail to remove it. However, they are unlikely to be held liable merely for hosting such content, as long as they act promptly once notified. If a platform knew or ought to have known of infringing activity and did not respond, it may be deemed jointly liable under the doctrine of joint tortfeasor ship.^[9]

Author: Harshit Mishra, in case of any queries please contact/write back to us via email to chhavi@khuranaandkhurana.com or at  Khurana & Khurana, Advocates and IP Attorney.

^[1] The Economic Impact of Counterfeiting and Piracy (OECD 2008)

^[2] INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT 2000, AS AMENDED BY THE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY (AMENDMENT) ACT 2008. (N.D.). WILMAP. RETRIEVED JULY 10, 2025, FROM HTTPS://WILMAP.STANFORD.EDU/ENTRIES/INFORMATION-TECHNOLOGY-ACT-2000-AMENDED-INFORMATION-TECHNOLOGY-AMENDMENT-ACT-2008

^[3] Safe Harbour Protection for E-Commerce platforms. (2021, July 15). India Corporate Law. https://corporate.cyrilamarchandblogs.com/2021/07/safe-harbour-protection-for-e-commerce-platforms/

^[4] Vide G.S.R. 139(E), dated 25.2.2021, published in the Gazette of India, Extra., Pt. II, Sec. 3(i), dated 25.2.202

^[5] Indonesian Criminal code (kuhp), article 55-56

^[6] Circular letter of Ministry of Communication and Informatics No. 5 of 2016 on Limitations and Responsibilities of Electronic Commerce Platform and Merchant Providers

^[7] Circular Letter No. 5 of 2016 issued by the Ministry of Communication and Informatics regarding the Limitations and Responsibilities of Electronic Commerce Platform and Merchant Providers

^[8] Calvin Klein, Inc and another v HS International Pte Ltd and others [2016] SGHC 214

^[9] “Singapore” [2023] Overlapping Intellectual Property Rights 712