The Delhi High Court’s ruling in Puma v. IndiaMart Intermesh, 2025 SCC Online Del 4165, provides a significant analysis of the connection between Indian trademark law and intermediary liability in the context of online marketplaces. The case arose from allegations that IndiaMart, a business-to-business listing platform, facilitated the sale of counterfeit Puma products. It was claimed that the platform allowed sellers to label their listings under “Puma shoes” during the registration process, thereby enabling the promotion of fake goods on its website.

In the initial proceedings, the Single Judge held that IndiaMart could not be regarded as a mere passive intermediary. The Court determined that the listing of counterfeit products on IndiaMart’s platform constituted a clear infringement of Puma’s registered trademark rights. Notably, the Court further held that even the inclusion of “Puma shoes” as a selectable option in the seller registration drop-down menu amounted to use of the trademark regardless of whether the term was ultimately visible to end consumers.

The Court reasoned that such internal categorisation enabled and facilitated the listing of counterfeit goods under Puma’s brand name, thereby misleading potential buyers and damaging the brand’s reputation. Consequently, IndiaMart was denied the safe harbour protection available under the Information Technology Act, 2000, on the grounds that it was actively involved in enabling the sale of infringing goods. Accordingly, an injunction was issued restraining both- IndiaMart, and the infringing sellers- from further misuse of Puma’s trademark.

IndiaMart appealed against the Single Judge’s ruling, before a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court, contending that it functions not as an e-commerce platform- but merely as a business-to-business listing service- with all transactions taking place off-platform. It argued that the drop-down menu in question served solely as a neutral, seller-facing classification tool. According to IndiaMart, product categorisation was undertaken unilaterally by sellers, without any active involvement or control from the platform. As such, it claimed that the drop-down menu itself did not contribute to trademark infringement liability, which it argued could only arise if a seller misused the tool.

Court’s decision:

The Court opined that the action of offering an option to the sellers to describe its goods by using its brand name per se could not be termed as dishonest business practice.

Further, the Court found that IndiaMart provides listing services that allow buyers to connect with sellers; it serves as a platform where buyers and sellers carry out negotiations and complete transactions directly with each other. As a result, even though Puma’s products were listed on the platform, the dropdown menu alone did not amount to infringement unless it was used to sell counterfeit goods. The Court compared IndiaMart’s role to that of a yellow pages directory that organizes product listings, rather than an e-commerce site directly involved in the sale process.

While the IndiaMart was not required to remove the Puma name and trademark from the drop-down menu, but was obliged to take swift action on specific takedown requests. The Court acknowledged the practical limitations of controlling third-party seller behaviour on a neutral listing platform, while striking a balance between safeguarding brand owners like Puma and recognizing the legitimate business model of marketplaces like IndiaMart.