Christian Louboutin v Nakul Bajaj

Facts

• Christian Louboutin holds trademark rights in its signature red-lacquered sole for high-heel shoes
• Darveys.com (operated by Nakul Bajaj) advertised and sold shoes with red soles bearing Louboutin branding
• Darveys described itself as a "luxury lifestyle" platform, curating listings and guaranteeing authenticity
• The platform exercised control over product photography, descriptions, and pricing
• Louboutin purchased a pair through the platform and confirmed they were counterfeit
• Darveys claimed intermediary immunity under S.79 of the IT Act 2000

Issues

1. Whether an e-commerce platform that curates, advertises, and guarantees products is still an "intermediary" under S.79 IT Act
2. What level of participation converts a platform from intermediary to active seller/infringer
3. Whether trademark infringement by platforms selling counterfeits is actionable despite S.79

Held

• S.79 safe harbour protects only "passive" intermediaries that merely provide a conduit
• A platform that selects products, controls listings, advertises quality, guarantees authenticity, and warehouses goods is not a passive intermediary
• Darveys' active participation (curation, quality claims, advertising) took it outside S.79 protection
• The platform was liable for trademark infringement as a direct participant, not an innocent intermediary
• The court drew a spectrum from passive marketplace to active retailer; Darveys fell on the active end

Ratio Decidendi

S.79 immunity is conditional on the intermediary not initiating, selecting, or modifying the information. Where a platform exercises curatorial judgment, markets products as its own offering, or guarantees quality, it ceases to be a mere intermediary and becomes a principal in the transaction. The greater the platform's involvement in the listing and sale, the less defensible the safe harbour claim.