Ecommerce Platforms Liability for Trademark Infringement

Your brand has fake listings on three marketplaces right now. You found them. You reported them. They came back under a different URL. You reported those too. Two weeks later, new ones appeared. This is not a hypothetical. And the legal tool that was starting to fix it just got narrower. It was called a dynamic injunction. Here is how it worked. You go to court, prove infringement, get an order. That order does not just block the websites you found. It gives you the ability to add newly discovered infringing websites to the blocking order in real time, without filing a fresh suit every time a new URL appears. One order. Ongoing protection. The court stays engaged while infringers keep shifting. For any brand dealing with copycat domains and fake listings, that is not a minor procedural tool. That is the difference between enforcement that works and enforcement that only works once. On 16 March 2026, the Delhi High Court narrowed it significantly. In 𝐌𝐚𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐝𝐫𝐚 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐌𝐚𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐝𝐫𝐚 𝐋𝐢𝐦𝐢𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐯. 𝐃𝐢𝐤𝐬𝐡𝐚 𝐒𝐡𝐚𝐫𝐦𝐚, the Court held that once a final decree is passed, the suit is over. Any injunction granted during the suit merges into that decree and cannot be kept alive indefinitely to cover future infringers. The court has discharged its function. If Mahindra, one of India's most recognised brands with significant legal resources, cannot get post-decree dynamic protection through the existing framework, smaller brands certainly cannot rely on it either. The Court did not say dynamic injunctions are dead. It said the current legal framework cannot sustain them beyond the life of a suit, and that the legislature needs to step in. That call has been made. The reform has not arrived. And legislative reform in India rarely moves at the speed that online infringement does. That reform will come. But it will take time. It almost always does. What this means for your brand right now: the enforcement window is narrower than it was. You cannot wait until infringement is widespread before you act. You need to monitor earlier, identify infringers while the suit is still live, and move faster than you probably thought necessary. The tools are still there. They just require more planning, and less time, than they did before. If you have a product that sells online and you have not mapped your infringement exposure or thought about enforcement timelines, this judgment is the reason to start that conversation now. #TrademarkLaw #DelhiHighCourt #BrandProtection #Ecommerce #D2C #IPLaw

Flipkart restrained from using “MarQ” Trademark. The Supreme Court recently upheld the Delhi High Court’s interim order restraining Flipkart India from using the trademark “MarQ” for its electronic products on the ground that it was deceptively similar to MarQ Enterprises' registered trademark “Marc”. Case Name: Marc Enterprises Pvt Ltd. v. Flipkart India Pvt. Ltd Facts of the case: Marc Enterprises, the prior adopter and continuous user of the trademark “Marc” since 1981, filed a trademark infringement action against Flipkart for using the mark “MarQ” for electronic appliances and consumer goods. Flipkart Contended that: • “MarQ” was honestly adopted in 2017, • It was used distinctively and the products were sold through Flipkart’s e-commerce platform. The dispute primarily involved provisions of the Trademarks Act, 1999, including: • Section 11- relative grounds for refusal of registration due to likelihood of confusion with an earlier trademark. • Section 28- Rights conferred by registration of a trademark • Section 29- Trademark infringement involving identical or deceptively similar marks • Section 134- Jurisdiction for filing trademark infringement suits Observations of the court: The Supreme Court agreed with the Delhi High Court’s findings that: • “Marc” and “MarQ” are phonetically and visually similar, • Both belong to the same class of goods, • And such similarity is likely to create confusion among consumers. The court emphasised that deceptively similar trademarks cannot be permitted as they dilute brand identity and mislead consumers. Court Decision: The Supreme Court upheld the interim injunction restraining Flipkart from manufacturing, selling or using the mark “MarQ”, while granting a limited time to dispose of existing stock. This judgment is another strong reminder that trademarks are valuable commercial assets deserving robust legal protection. #ipr #trademarks #assets #supremcourt #judgements #similarname #flipkart #brandprotection

Another recognizable consumer brand has entered the TRO enforcement space. CASETiFY recently filed a lawsuit in the Northern District of Illinois alleging trademark infringement and counterfeit sales involving unauthorized phone cases and electronic accessories sold online. For Amazon, Walmart, Shopify, and marketplace sellers, this case serves as another reminder that trademark risk can extend beyond logos alone. Product titles, keywords, listing images, and branding may all play a role in an infringement claim. We break down what online sellers should know and what this case may signal moving forward. Read more below. https://lnkd.in/eNY7YppG #AmazonSeller #Ecommerce #TrademarkLaw #BrandProtection #OnlineSelling #IntellectualProperty #Stockmanporopat #EntrepreneursforEntrepreneurs

Dear Connections, I'm thrilled to share that my article titled "Counterfeit Goods in the Digital Era: A Legal Analysis of Trademark Enforcement and E-Commerce Platform Liability in India" has been published in the DSNLU Journal of Science, Technology and Law, Volume 4, Issue 1! This has been a deeply rewarding research journey, and I'm grateful to my co-author Navya Joshi Andrew for making this possible. The article explores how the exponential rise of e-commerce has created new and complex challenges for trademark enforcement, enabling counterfeit goods to proliferate across online marketplaces at an alarming scale. It analyses the secondary liability of e-commerce platforms in curbing trademark infringement in India, benchmarks the existing legal framework against global standards, and puts forward meaningful recommendations to strengthen online trademark protection and combat counterfeit trade. I hope you find it an interesting read!

For years, platforms have relied on the "Notice and Takedown" system, where brands do the monitoring. But two major cases are challenging who is responsible for monitoring for infringement: Bastiat USA, Inc. v. Shein Distribution Corp. et al. Batistiat USA, Inc. (Brandy Melville) accused Shein of facilitating copying and infringement of third-party sellers on its online marketplace. The parties are currently litigating claims for platform liability, including false designation of origin and vicarious copyright infringement. Currently, Plaintiffs must make a claim for contributory infringement against platforms facilitating third-party sellers, and show that the platform knows of the infringing activity and actively contributes to it. The decision in this case could open the door to claims of vicarious liability against platforms that host infringing content by sellers, based on the design of the platform and the level of oversight. Chanel, Inc., v. The RealReal, Inc. Chanel filed suit against The RealReal, claiming trademark infringement and sale of counterfeit goods. While The RealReal has attempted to fight the lawsuit under theories of antitrust violations, claims holding The RealReal liable for infringement and the sale of counterfeits remain. Here, The RealReal's passive marketplace defense is failing because platform represents to consumers that it has authenticated all products. The Shift: We are moving from an era where platforms only had to react to reports to one where they may have a duty to monitor what is uploaded onto the platform. The outcome of these cases could suggest that if a platform presents, promotes, and profits from infringing content through its specific design, it cannot hide behind its sellers. #IntellectualProperty #IPLaw #Ecommerce

A competitor tried to kill our ecom business with a fake trademark infringement claim. We didn't copied their product. We didn't stole their branding. We just improved on it based on what customers actually cared about and started taking their market share. When Katrina and I launched one of our hero products at Monet Brands, we studied the category leader closely. They had been the top seller for a while but had gotten comfortable. Poor branding. Listings that didn't speak to what customers actually wanted. Pricing that was way too high for what you got. We looked at the reviews, validated what customers were actually looking for and improved the product. We built listings that spoke directly to buyer intent. We priced it to win. It worked. Our sales climbed and theirs started slipping. Instead of improving their product or optimizing their listing, they filed a false trademark infringement claim with Amazon trying to get our products taken down. Amazon sided with us. So they filed another one. And another. We tried to handle it ourselves. We asked them to do the right thing. They didn't. So we hired a lawyer and sent a cease and desist letter. That finally put an end to it. Less than a year later, their sales completely tanked. We became the #1 seller in our category and got featured in BuzzFeed, Allure, and Today.com. Here's what we learned from this: You can't defend a market position with dirty tricks. If your only response to a new competitor is filing false claims instead of making your product better, you've already lost. The real moat is never playing petty tricks. It's your ability to listen to what customers want and keep improving. If you're entering a competitive market, look for the incumbents who got comfortable. Study what their customers are actually saying. Build something better and let the improved offering do the talking. Dirty tricks never last. Better products do.

“𝗙𝗹𝗶𝗽𝗸𝗮𝗿𝘁 𝗟𝗼𝘀𝘁 𝗮 𝗧𝗿𝗮𝗱𝗲𝗺𝗮𝗿𝗸 𝗕𝗮𝘁𝘁𝗹𝗲 𝗢𝘃𝗲𝗿 𝗝𝘂𝘀𝘁 𝗢𝗻𝗲 𝗟𝗲𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗿-𝗛𝗲𝗿𝗲’𝘀 𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗘𝘃𝗲𝗿𝘆𝗼𝗻𝗲 𝗜𝘀 𝗠𝗶𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗻𝗴” What if I told you… 👉 𝗖𝗵𝗮𝗻𝗴𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗼𝗻𝗲 𝗹𝗲𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗿 in your brand name won’t save you 👉 Even adding your company name won’t protect you If that sounds debatable, the Delhi High Court has now settled the position. The Delhi High Court 𝗵𝗲𝗹𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 “𝗠𝗮𝗿𝗤” 𝗶𝗻𝗳𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗴𝗲𝘀 “𝗠𝗔𝗥𝗖”-despite the difference in spelling. 𝗙𝗔𝗖𝗧𝗦 • Marc Enterprises: using “MARC” since the 1980s  • Flipkart: launched “MarQ” in 2017 for large appliances  • 𝗠𝗮𝗿𝗰 𝘀𝘂𝗲𝗱 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝘁𝗿𝗮𝗱𝗲𝗺𝗮𝗿𝗸 𝗶𝗻𝗳𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗴𝗲𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗽𝗮𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗼𝗳𝗳, leading to an interim injunction against Flipkart. 𝗔𝗥𝗚𝗨𝗠𝗘𝗡𝗧𝗦 Flipkart’s case: • “𝗠𝗮𝗿𝗤” 𝗶𝘀 𝘃𝗶𝘀𝘂𝗮𝗹𝗹𝘆 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗰𝗲𝗽𝘁𝘂𝗮𝗹𝗹𝘆 𝗱𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗰𝘁 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 “𝗠𝗔𝗥𝗖.” • The brand is always used with “Flipkart”, reducing confusion. • Products are sold online → consumers are more aware and discerning. • “Mar/Marc/Mark” is common in the market—no monopoly possible. Marc Enterprises’ case: • “MARC” is a prior registered and extensively used mark. • “𝗠𝗮𝗿𝗤” 𝗶𝘀 𝗽𝗵𝗼𝗻𝗲𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗹𝗹𝘆 𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗹, 𝗹𝗲𝗮𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗼 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗳𝘂𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻. • Goods are similar and sold through overlapping channels (including online). • Adding a house mark does not eliminate infringement. 𝗝𝗨𝗗𝗚𝗘𝗠𝗘𝗡𝗧 The 𝗖𝗼𝘂𝗿𝘁 𝗿𝘂𝗹𝗲𝗱 𝗮𝗴𝗮𝗶𝗻𝘀𝘁 𝗙𝗹𝗶𝗽𝗸𝗮𝗿𝘁. 𝗞𝗲𝘆 𝘁𝗮𝗸𝗲𝗮𝘄𝗮𝘆𝘀: • 𝗣𝗵𝗼𝗻𝗲𝘁𝗶𝗰 𝘀𝗶𝗺𝗶𝗹𝗮𝗿𝗶𝘁𝘆 > 𝘀𝗽𝗲𝗹𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗱𝗶𝗳𝗳𝗲𝗿𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲𝘀  • House marks don’t guarantee protection  • E-commerce does not eliminate confusion  • Prior user rights remain dominant The Court also dismissed Flipkart’s reliance on subsequent trademark registrations like “Flipkart MarQ,” noting that they do not override earlier rights or ongoing infringement findings. 𝗖𝗢𝗡𝗖𝗟𝗨𝗦𝗜𝗢𝗡 This case reinforces a critical trademark principle: 𝗜𝗳 𝗶𝘁 𝘀𝗼𝘂𝗻𝗱𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘀𝗮𝗺𝗲, 𝗶𝘁 𝗰𝗮𝗻 𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗹𝗹 𝗶𝗻𝗳𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗴𝗲. Notably, the Court relied on the “average consumer with imperfect recollection” standard—meaning your 𝗯𝗿𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗶𝘀 𝗷𝘂𝗱𝗴𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘄𝗮𝘆 𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗹 𝗽𝗲𝗼𝗽𝗹𝗲 𝗿𝗲𝗺𝗲𝗺𝗯𝗲𝗿 𝗶𝘁, 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗵𝗼𝘄 𝗹𝗮𝘄𝘆𝗲𝗿𝘀 𝗱𝗿𝗮𝗳𝘁 𝗶𝘁. 💬 Final Thought If you’re building a brand today: 𝗜𝘀 𝘆𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗺𝗮𝗿𝗸 𝗮𝗰𝘁𝘂𝗮𝗹𝗹𝘆 𝗱𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗰𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲... 𝗼𝗿 𝗷𝘂𝘀𝘁 𝗮 𝗰𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝘃𝗮𝗿𝗶𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗼𝗳 𝘀𝗼𝗺𝗲𝘁𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗮𝗹𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗱𝘆 𝗲𝘅𝗶𝘀𝘁𝘀? #TrademarkInfringement #IntellectualPropertyIndia #BrandProtection #IPLaw #DelhiHighCourt #EcommerceLaw #Startups #LegalUpdate

Another major brand has entered the growing wave of trademark enforcement against online sellers. Deckers Outdoor Corporation, the company behind UGG, HOKA, and Teva, recently filed a TRO lawsuit targeting online storefronts accused of selling allegedly infringing products. Cases like these continue to show how brands use temporary restraining orders (TROs) and Schedule A lawsuits to quickly address alleged trademark infringement across online marketplaces. For sellers, these cases can move fast. Frozen funds, disrupted storefronts, and tight deadlines often come before sellers fully understand what happened. If you sell online, strong sourcing records and compliant listings matter more than ever. Read our breakdown of the Deckers TRO lawsuit and what online sellers should know. https://lnkd.in/eY32ZGBp #AmazonSellers #Ecommerce #TrademarkLaw #IntellectualProperty #OnlineSellers #AmazonFBA #EntrepreneursforEntrepreneurs #StockmanPoropat

What if your best-selling product was already being copied right now without your knowledge? That is the reality most brands face today. Counterfeiting and digital piracy don’t announce themselves; they quietly erode sales, confuse customers, and weaken brand trust until the damage becomes visible. How do you actually defend your brand? It starts with proper legal ownership. A brand cannot enforce rights it hasn’t secured. This means registering trademarks (your name, logo, and key identifiers) in all relevant markets where you sell or plan to sell. For product-based businesses, additional protection like design rights or patents may also be necessary. Without this foundation, enforcement has no real footing. Then comes active monitoring. Infringement now lives everywhere—social media pages selling fake versions of your product, e-commerce platforms listing counterfeits, and physical markets moving imitation goods. Brands that stay protected are not guessing; they are constantly scanning for misuse of their identity and products. Once infringement is found, the next step is swift takedown action. Online platforms typically have structured complaint systems. With the right evidence of ownership, you can request removal of fake listings or accounts. Speed is critical here, the longer the counterfeit stays up, the more harm it does. For physical goods, enforcement becomes more coordinated. This may involve working with customs authorities to intercept counterfeit imports or engaging enforcement agencies to seize fake goods already in circulation. In many jurisdictions, pre-recording your IP with customs improves the chances of interception at the border. Where infringement persists, litigation becomes necessary. This isn't just about stopping one offender; it is also about sending a clear message that your brand is actively protected and will be defended through legal channels. Ultimately, effective IP protection is not a one-time legal exercise. It is an ongoing system, built on preparation, constant vigilance, and decisive response. In simple terms: if your brand is worth building, it is worth defending consistently and strategically. #MO #nugget #best #abuja #corporate #commercial #law #firm

You searched the trademark database, found a similar name, and figured a different spelling makes it fine. It doesn't. The USPTO doesn't do letter-for-letter matches; instead, they evaluate whether consumers could confuse the two brands. Before you build around a name, make sure it's actually clear.