Delhi HC Upholds IndiaMART’s Use of “PUMA” in Dropdown Menu, Mandates Takedowns on Notice

Introduction

In a key ruling on intermediary liability and trademark use online, the Delhi High Court has permitted IndiaMART Intermesh Ltd. (“IndiaMART”) to continue including the “PUMA” mark as a selectable option in its drop‑down menu for product listings—but must promptly remove counterfeit listings once notified. This decision clarifies both when marketplace functionalities cross into trademark misuse and the extent of platform responsibility once alerted.

Facts of the Case

PUMA SE, owner of registered “PUMA” trademarks, sued IndiaMART seeking to restrain it from:

1. Including “PUMA” as a brand suggestion/search term in its seller registration drop-down menu, and

2. Facilitating counterfeit PUMA goods listings.

The Single Judge (January 2024) injunction prevented IndiaMART from using any of Puma’s registered trademarks, including “PUMA,” in its dropdown.

IndiaMART appealed. The Division Bench (JJ. Bakhru & Ganju) reviewed whether:

• The dropdown use of “PUMA” aids infringement;
• Safe harbour under intermediary guidelines applies; and
• Sellers listing counterfeit goods must be taken down once brought to notice.

Issues Raised

• Does offering “PUMA” as a dropdown brand option for sellers amount to trademark infringement or abetting?
• Are takedown obligations triggered once IndiaMART is informed of infringing listings?
• Should an intermediary be prohibited from providing brand‑suggestion aids to sellers?

Arguments of the Parties

IndiaMART:

• Technical provider role: merely facilitates seller-buyer contact; does not execute or control transactions.
• Dropdown aid ≠ abetting infringement: sellers can bypass suggestions.
• Complies with Intermediary Rules: has terms prohibiting counterfeit and removes listings upon notification.

PUMA:

• Dropdown presence of the “PUMA” mark results in associating legitimate branding with potential counterfeit listings.
• Such use of a trademark even hidden during registration can prime counterfeiters.
• Platform’s generic suggestions could mislead sellers and buyers alike.

Judgement

The Delhi High Court ruled as follows:

• Dropdown use is permissible. The Court held that merely “providing an option” in a drop‑down menu for brand selection “cannot, prima facie, be held to be a ground to hold that it aids and abets the infringer”
• IndiaMART is not an e-commerce but a listing platform. It only helps establish contact; the actual sale negotiations and fulfillment happen independently.
• But takedowns remain mandatory. IndiaMART must “forthwith take down all infringing listings containing the PUMA marks on the same being brought to its notice”.
• The Single Judge’s order is overturned only to the extent that it prohibited listing PUMA in the drop‑down. Every other direction, including counterfeiting takedowns, stands.

Conclusion

The Delhi HC’s decision strikes a balanced note: Platforms can streamline seller listings through branded dropdowns without being branded as infringers, provided they have strong internal policies and act diligently once alerted to violations. This sets a helpful precedent for B2B marketplaces, reaffirming that functional design features are not trademark misuse, but responsibility is triggered by knowledge of wrongdoing.