LIABILITY OF THE E-COMMERCE PLATFORMS FOR INFRINGEMENT OF THE TRADEMARK
Keywords:
E-Commerce, Trademark, Infringement, Meta-Tagging, Cyber Squatting, RemediesAbstract
Trademarks are becoming increasingly crucial for business transactions as an outcome of growing competition among multinational corporations. A trademark is regarded as a communication tool that companies employ to enlighten and draw in customers. Trademarks ensure the quality and worth of the product, furthermore, facilitates the customers to recognise the goods or services. The paper covers an overall perspective of trademark infringements by e- commerce platforms, with a particular emphasis on remedies. The article examines the court decisions of India and various other countries involving trademark infringement. The paper highly relies on the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) documents to highlight the key areas of concern for legal practitioners and trademark holders.
Downloads
References
Georgetown Law. (2023, September 26). International and Foreign Cyberspace Law Research Guide. Georgetown law library. Retrieved February 20, 2024 from https://guides.ll.georgetown.edu/cyberspace.
Icon Health and Fitness Inc v. Sheriff Usman and Anr CS(OS)--216/2016
Banyan Tree v. Murali Krishna Reddy CS (OS) 894/2008
Impressario Entertainment & Hospitality v. S&D Hospitality (CS(COMM) 111/2017)
Mohin, V., & Syed Abbas Askari. (2018, OCTOBER/NOVEMBER). Though the looking glass: Interpreting jurisdiction in online transactions. World Trademark Review
Zippo Manufacturing Co v. Zippo Dot Com, Inc (952 F Supp 1119 (1997)
Ahn, A. S. (2015). Clarifying the Standards for Personal Jurisdiction in the Light of Growing Transactions on the Internet: The Zippo Test and Pleading of Personal Jurisdiction. Minnesota Law Review., 2324 -2361.
Gladstone, J. A. (2003, June). Determining Jurisdiction in Cyberspace:The "Zippo" Test or the "Effects" Test? Informing Science.
Sableman, M. (2001). Link Law Revisited: Internet Linking Law at Five Years. Berkeley Technology Law Journal, 16(3), 1273–1343.
Maggs, G. E. (2002). Regulating Electronic Commerce. The American Journal of Comparative Law, 50, 665–685.
American Bar Association’s Task Force on Electronic Commerce and Alternative Dispute Resolution in Cooperation with the Shidler Center for Law, Commerce and Technology, University of Washington School of Law. (2002). Addressing Disputes in Electronic Commerce: Final Recommendations and Report. The Business Lawyer, 58(1), 415–477.
Al-kandari, M. A. (2002). Infringement of Copyright and Trade Marks in Electronic Commerce: A Kuwaiti and Comparative Approach. Arab Law Quarterly, 17(1), 3–27.
Aqua Minerals Limited Vs Mr. Pramod Borse&Anr, MANU/DE/0642/2001.
Sbicards.com v. Domain Active Property LtdCase No. D2005 0271
Defining the limits of free-riding in cyberspace: Trading liability for metatagging”, Gonza Law Review, 1997/1998; Vol.33, No.2, pp. 277-309.
Brookfield Communications Inc. v. West Coast Entertainment Corp, 50 U.S.P.Q. 2d 1545 (9th Cir. 1999)
Odin v. Le Ludion, Paris Court of First Instance, Chamber 3, Sect. 3, Oct.29, 2002.
(People Interactive (I) Pvt Ltd v. Gaurav Jerry (Nms (L) 1504/2014 In Suit (L) 622/2014
Google LLC v. DRS Logistics (P) Ltd., 2023 FAO(OS)(COMM) 2/2022 & FAO(OS) (COMM) 22/2022.
MakeMyTrip India Pvt Ltd v. Booking.com BV and Ors., CS (COMM) 268/2022.
SCC OnLine Del 3879, decided on 17-11-2022
Antonelli, A. (2003). APPLICABLE LAW ASPECTS OF COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT ON THE INTERNET: WHAT PRINCIPLES SHOULD APPLY? Singapore Journal of Legal Studies, 147–177.
Jennings, J. S. (1989). Trademark Counterfeiting: An Unpunished Crime. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology (1973-), 80(3), 805–841.
