E-Commerce In Doldrum: Doubts Over Third Parties ‘Latching On’ Bestseller Trademarks
- IJLLR Journal
- Jul 31, 2024
- 2 min read
Jharna, B.A. LL.B. and LL.M. (Intellectual Property Rights), University School of Law and Legal Studies, Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University, Dwarka, Delhi.
ABSTRACT
The emergence of e-commerce has created a number of challenges for IPR protection. Traditionally an action for passing off was restricted to 2 products that had similar marks, logos, names, or labels. It is now extended to a new dimension with the advent of e -commerce. An alternative platform is provided to Enterprises in order to conduct business online. But there are certain features on these e-commerce websites that can damage the intellectual property of entrepreneurs and entities. E-commerce platforms often allow third party sellers to ‘latch on’ bestseller trademarks for their own products. This allows them to ride on the popularity of the products and the design of those products as marketed by the bestsellers. Third party sellers also don’t shy from using photographs identical to that of the bestseller product listings. This is allowed by e-commerce websites through different features like ‘more sellers’, ‘other similar products’, etc.
A conflict of opinions arises regarding this feature. It is still a question whether such options on an e-commerce site fall foul of the Trademarks Act, 1999. It is a recurring difficulty for brands and their IP rights are under shadow owing to the advanced search options and ease of consumers as the driving force for e-commerce websites. The author attempts to explore the issue of trademark protection in light of e-commerce functions and contemporary solutions to the same. The author will delve into a discussion of this issue in light of the recent orders of the High Court of Delhi in the matter of Akash Aggarwal v. Flipkart Internet Private Limited and Ors.. An analysis in light of the Trademark Act, 1999 and its statutory provisions is undertaken to answer the question whether such action would constitute ‘passing off’ under the Act.
