E-Commerce Marketplaces

What the IndiaMART v Puma Ruling Changes for Takedowns

Mithileshkumar R NaikAug 15, 20263 min read

A single Delhi High Court judge ruled against IndiaMART for trademark infringement over “Puma.” Six months later, the same case, on appeal, came out the opposite way. If you’re relying on marketplace safe harbour to define what your takedown obligations actually are, that reversal is worth reading carefully, because the appellate ruling changes what “prompt removal” is actually required to look like.

What the single judge got wrong, and what the division bench fixed

The first ruling found that even a seller-facing drop-down menu labelled “Puma shoes” amounted to trademark use by IndiaMART itself, stripping the platform of safe harbour under the IT Act entirely. On appeal, the division bench reversed that: IndiaMART was a neutral listing service, not a direct e-commerce seller, and remained eligible for safe harbour, provided it promptly removed infringing listings once notified.

That reinstates the basic principle brand owners rely on when sending takedown notices to any marketplace: a platform that acts on notice isn’t automatically liable just because infringing content briefly existed on it.

See Truviss in action

See how Truviss tracks repeat-seller patterns across marketplaces, not just individual listings.

Explore Truviss

The part of the ruling that actually matters for your takedown strategy

Here’s what changes the calculus. The division bench didn’t just restore blanket safe harbour, it conditioned it. Safe harbour survives only where prompt and effective compliance is demonstrated, and that includes reasonable efforts to prevent the same seller re-listing the same infringing product after a takedown. If a marketplace lets a seller who was already taken down for counterfeit “Puma” listings simply re-list the identical product under a slightly different listing, that failure to prevent re-listing would, on its own, indicate negligence or complicity, and cost the platform its safe harbour protection under Section 79(3)(a).

For a brand sending takedown notices, this is the practical lever. A one-time takedown that a seller can quietly reverse the same week isn’t the end of the obligation, on either side. The marketplace has to show it’s actually preventing repeat infringement by the same seller, not just processing individual removal requests as they come in. And for the brand, that means your own takedown records need to capture repeat offenders specifically, not just count total listings removed, because a documented pattern of re-listing by the same seller is exactly the evidence that shifts liability back onto the platform.

What this means in practice

If you’re running takedown enforcement against marketplace counterfeits, the IndiaMART v Puma appeal gives you a concrete standard to hold platforms to: prompt removal on notice, plus demonstrated prevention of repeat listings by the same seller. A platform that can’t show the second half isn’t actually protected by safe harbour, regardless of how quickly it handled the first request.

This is the same logic behind Truviss’s marketplace monitoring approach, tracking not just individual listings but repeat-seller patterns across marketplaces, which is exactly the evidence a brand needs both to get a marketplace takedown processed and to hold a platform accountable if the same seller keeps coming back.

Sources: Delhi High Court clarifies obligations of online listing services following Puma infringement dispute (World Trademark Review); Safe Harbour Upheld: Delhi HC Rules IndiaMart’s Use of ‘PUMA’ in Drop-Down Not Trademark Infringement (IPRMentLaw); Trade Mark Infringement and Intermediary Liability in IndiaMart v Puma (Tree of Life Associates).

Build takedown evidence that actually holds up

Book a free demo and see how Truviss documents repeat infringement across marketplaces.

Book a Free Demo