PUMA vs. IndiaMART: How Online Listings Almost Derailed a Global Brand’s Trust
Why Brands Must Watch the Web 24×7 to Defend Their Identity Published On April 30, 2025 The Story: PUMA SE, a leading global sportswear brand, discovered widespread unauthorized usage of its trademark on IndiaMART, one of India’s largest B2B ecommerce platforms. Fake and deceptively similar products appeared in dropdown menus and listings. What Went Wrong? Counterfeit sellers were able to use PUMA’s name in search and listing structures. Listings remained active for a prolonged time. The infringement went undetected long enough to risk consumer confusion and brand trust. Court Ruling: The Delhi High Court took strong note of this and emphasized that ecommerce platforms are responsible for monitoring and removing infringing listings. The platform’s structure itself was indirectly enabling brand misuse. Lessons for Brands: Your trademark isn’t just under threat offline or in the registry. It can be quietly eroded online, every day. Delay in action means more counterfeit presence, more buyer confusion, and reputational erosion. Goldfinn CWS Insight: With Goldfinn CWS, you get fast detection of brand misuse across digital marketplaces and search behaviors. From fake listings to trademark misuse in meta-data — we help brands intervene before the damage is done.
When Delay Damages Your Brand: The Essel Propack vs. Essel Kitchenware Case
Why Monitoring and Swift Enforcement Should Be Non-Negotiable In 2003, Essel Propack discovered that Essel Kitchenware was using the “Essel” mark for utensils. They issued a warning — but then they waited. It was only in 2010, seven years later, that they filed a lawsuit. Result? The Bombay High Court held that Essel Propack’s inaction amounted to acquiescence. The court emphasized that allowing a competitor to grow unchallenged created an impression of acceptance. Essel Propack’s chances of securing injunctive relief were severely weakened. Impact: Essel Kitchenware had firmly established itself in the market. Essel Propack’s exclusive brand control suffered permanent damage. Lessons for Brands: Delay = Danger. You must proactively monitor all uses of your brand — not just in your industry, but in adjacent spaces too. Letting “small” infringements slide today can create “big” competitors tomorrow. Goldfinn CWS Insight: Goldfinn CWS empowers brands by providing real-time monitoring across Trademark Registry, Ecommerce, Websites, and more — ensuring no threat goes unnoticed, and no delay in response. Stay Alert, Stay Dominant. Source: Cited across Indian IP Law commentaries and judgment summaries.
Amazon Fined ₹339 Cr for Trademark Infringement: The BHPC Case and Why It Matters
When Delay in Monitoring E-commerce Costs Big Money and Brand Equity The Story: In one of India’s most significant IP rulings, the Delhi High Court in February 2025 ordered Amazon to pay $39 million (approx. ₹339 crore) in damages to Lifestyle Equities, owner of the “Beverly Hills Polo Club” (BHPC) brand. What Went Wrong? Amazon continued to sell products featuring marks deceptively similar to BHPC through third-party sellers. Despite prior awareness, Amazon failed to take down the listings promptly. The court found Amazon directly liable for facilitating the sale of infringing goods. Consequences: Massive brand dilution for BHPC due to substandard lookalike products sold at lower prices. Loss of consumer trust and perceived exclusivity. Legal damages totaling over ₹339 Cr — a strong statement from Indian courts. Lessons for Brands: E-commerce infringement is no longer “third-party risk” — platforms can be held accountable. Delayed action magnifies the loss. Online brand protection must be as aggressive as offline. Goldfinn CWS Insight: Goldfinn CWS offers real-time ecommerce surveillance across platforms like Amazon, Flipkart, and IndiaMART. Early detection means early takedown, safeguarding your brand reputation and revenue.
How Delay Cost Khadi Dearly: The KVIC vs. Girdhar Industries Case
Why Timely Brand Monitoring and Action is Critical Published On April 30, 2025 In 2020, Khadi & Village Industries Commission (KVIC) sought to halt Girdhar Industries’ use of “Girdhar Khadi.” But the Delhi High Court denied KVIC’s request for interim injunction due to one fatal flaw — delay. Background: Girdhar Industries had been using “Girdhar Khadi” since 2001. Trademark registered in 2005. KVIC only moved to court in 2020, even though they were aware of the unauthorized use since at least 2017. What Went Wrong? The Court ruled that KVIC’s delay amounted to “acquiescence” — meaning they were seen to have silently accepted the situation. Girdhar Industries had built strong market goodwill during the time KVIC stayed inactive. The suppression of key facts further weakened KVIC’s case. Lessons for Brands: In IP law, time is of the essence. If you don’t act quickly against infringement, you may lose your right to enforce. Courts favor parties who are vigilant about protecting their brands. Goldfinn CWS Insight: If KVIC had an active brand monitoring system like Goldfinn CWS, unauthorized uses and threats would have been detected early, allowing prompt legal action. Early alerts + Early action = Brand Power Protected! Sources: Mondaq+1Intellect Vidhya Solutions Law LLP+1, SpicyIP, Indian Kanoon