Trademark Infringements in E-commerce: A Comparative Study of India, China & USA

Issues of Trademark Infringement in E-Commerce: A
Comparative Study of India, China and USA
“IIPLA 2nd Global IP Summit London, UK, 6th & 7th June, 2016.
Dr. Tabrez Ahmad, Professor & Director, College of Legal Studies, UPES
Version 2

Agenda
1. Cybersquating-India, China and USA
2. Regulation of E-Commerce & Jurisdiction
3. Secondary Liability of ISP
4. Judicial Decisions
5. Duties of ISP
6. Conclusion
Dr. Tabrez Ahmad; http://technolexindia.blogspot.in

1. Cybersquating- India, China and USA
• In most national legislations, there are several regimes for regulating
cases involving domains, especially in terms of cybersquatting. In this
regard, the practice of the USA, India and China is indicative.
• In the United States of America, the Anti-cybersquatting Protection Act
(Truth in Domain Names Act) applies since 1999.
• This Act forbids behavior of individuals, who have bad faith intent to
profit from someone else’s trademark, by registering or using domain
names that are identical, confusingly similar or delusive of a trademark.
• The most interesting aspect of this piece of legislation is 15 USC s. 1125
(d) 2 C. Pursuant to this provision, the domain names are subject to an
in rem action, in the judicial district where the domain name was
registered

1. Cybersquating- India, China and USA Cont..
• China Interim Administrative Measures on Domain Name Registration;
• - China Interim Regulations on the Management of International networking of
Computer Information;
• - Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Application of Laws in
the Trial of Civil Disputes over Domain Names of Computer Network.
• Court decisions in China include several important cases dealing with
cybersquatting and applicability of the trademark law.
• If, however, the cybersquatter is a legal person, then an in personam action is
filed. Some familiar cases dealing with this issue are: Kremen vs. Stephen
Michael Cohen, Network Solutions et al, who disputed over the sex.com domain.

1. Cybersquating- India, China and USA Cont..
In India the 1st Cybersuating case was decided by the Delhi High
Court in the Yahoo V. Akash Arora and later on upheld by the
Supreme Court of India in 2005.
The court held that the domain names are just like the trademark
and the trademark holder will have priority over the similar domain
names.

2. Regulation of E-commerce & Jurisdiction
• Due to global boundary of e-commerce and its fast growth the regulation of e-
commerce is a complex issue.
• In e-commerce transactions due to the inseparable supports from third party
service providers the joint infringement has become another hot topic in e-
commerce infringement.
• However, there is no essential difference in the positions between online payment
service providers and the third-parties in traditional payment mode.
• Also, the role of logistics service providers who assist the completion of goods
delivery in e-commerce is no different from that in traditional economy.
• Therefore, a lot of problems remain focused on service providers in the area of
transaction information.
• It is very important to do an in-depth analysis of the E-commerce in India, China
and USA to provide viable solutions for E-commerce regulation for the protection of
trademarks.

Cont..
• It is a brand new problem to identify infringers in e-commerce environment.
• In practice, there are several ways to solve this problem;
• to obtain information through internet real name authentication;
• to obtain indirect information from internet such as the operators of
relevant websites, domain name owners or information of ICP
recordation;
• to obtain the seller information through sample purchase; and
• to obtained information from the ISP.
• The basic principle to determine jurisdictions in trademark infringement is
that the local court at the place of domicile of the defendant or at the
place where the infringement occurs has the jurisdiction over the case.

Cont..
• It is difficult to get the affirmation from the majority of courts to
establish jurisdiction merely by the shipping address.
• However, in some cases, if the parties specified in the contract
that a particular place is selected as the place of performing the
contract, it is possible that such place may be deemed as the
place where the sales act is taken place and the local court may
have jurisdiction.
• If the unauthorized use of trademark relates to transaction
information, plaintiff may also consider using the location of the
server of the website to establish jurisdiction.

Cont..
• Another problem that the right owners frequently encounter in trademark
enforcement is the sale of parallel imported goods in e-commerce.
• These goods are usually “genuine”, but are supposed to be sold in other countries.
• Legislation is silent on whether selling goods through parallel import and breach of
contract constitute trademark infringement, the majority of courts or enforcement
authorities take a reserved attitude toward this issue.
• The typical acts of such infringement include: selling products on e-commerce
platforms which, according to the agreement, could only be sold directly;
• selling products on e-commerce platforms which, according to the agreement,
could only be sold in a certain regional territory; and
• selling products (such as products of luxury brand) on e-commerce platforms which
should be sold in certain circumstances selected and restricted strictly by the
trademark owners.

Cont..
• It is always difficult to stipulate whether these acts are legitimate or not.
• At present, trademark owners still face tough problems in their trademark protection on the
internet. Due to lacking of legal basis, ISPs usually will not deal with these goods.
• Some cases in Europe expressly support the trademark owners, such as Copad SA v. Christian
Dior couture SA.
• But no favorable precedent follows in India.
• In American Zippo v. Wang Lei, the court determined the defendant’s act constituted
trademark infringement.
• In general, regarding the use of others’ trademarks in the decoration of online shops, courts
focus on whether such use is fair and proper; whether such use will cause confusion to the
public, and whether such use will cause damages to the trademark owners.
• Currently, some ISPs will respond by taking actions to complaints regarding these kinds of act.
An act may still be deemed an infringement based on trademark dilution or unfair competition.
• In the case of Cartier v. Yihaodian and Mkela Company, a Chinese court has made a bold
verdict favoring the trademark owner

Cont..
• Given the meteoric rise of e-commerce companies like Flipkart and
Snapdeal in India, one may safely conclude that e-commerce is here to
stay.
• Legal disputes in the e-commerce sphere are already cropping up dime a
dozen.
• These disputes are unique in this that unlike traditional businesses which
are permanently established in a particular geographical region,
• e-commerce businesses enjoy a virtual/online presence and this
inevitably leads to questions of jurisdiction being pondered by the Court.

Cont..
• Recently, the Delhi HC in World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. v.
M/S Reshma Collection decided conclusively that jurisdiction in e-
commerce cases involving trademark and copyright disputes would
be determined by the buyer’s place of residence.
• The Court specifically interpreted the meaning of the phrase
“carries on business” as set out in Section 134(2) of the
Trademarks Act,1999 and Section 62(2) of the Copyright Act, 1957;
both these sections deal with the institution of suits in case of
violation of any provision of the aforementioned Acts.

Cont..
• Court’s Analysis:
• The Delhi HC delved into the interpretation of the phrase “carries on business”
mentioned in Section 134(2) and Section 62(2).
• The Sections state that as suit for infringement under the said Acts is to be
instituted in a District Court having jurisdiction to try the suit.
• Further, the Courts specify that “District Court having jurisdiction” would
“include a District Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction…the
person instituting the suit or proceeding…carries on business or personally works
for gain.”
• The Division Bench of the HC examined the Dhodha case where the SC laid down
a 3-pronged test to determine whether the plaintiff could be said to “carry on
business” in a particular place; the SC was also of the view that a person may
carry on business not necessarily by himself but through a servant or an agent.

Cont..
• The 3 conditions are:
• (i) the agent must be a special agent who attends exclusively to the
business of the principal and carries it on in the name of the principal
and not as a general agent who does business for any one that pays him;
• (ii) the person acting as agent, must be an agent in the strict sense of
the term and a manager of a Joint Hindu Family cannot be regarded as
an ―agent within the meaning of this condition; and
• (iii) to constitute ―carrying on business at a certain place, the essential
part of the business must be performed at that place.

Cont..
• “Because of the advancements in technology and the rapid growth
of new models of conducting business over the internet, it is
possible for an entity to have a virtual presence in a place which is
located at a distance from the place where it has a physical
presence.”
• Based on the above reasoning, the Court was of the opinion that
the plaintiff could be said to carry on his business (to some
extent) in Delhi and therefore, fulfilled the condition “carrying on
business” as laid down in Dhodha case. Consequently, the Court
set aside the order of the Single Judge, thereby allowing the
appeal in the present case.

3. Secondary Liability of ISP
• ISP’s joint liability in trademark infringement has been a hot issue. At
present, the safe harbor doctrine and the red flag standard are still
commonly-used.
• The conflicting issue is how to apply them, and it is always closely related
to the facts of individual cases.
• An important recent case is Eland Company v. Du Guofia and Taobao in
which a Chinese court made a verdict favoring the trademark owner.
• Although the nature of e-commerce under the Trademark Law is the same
as traditional economy, it requires serious attention to provide well
established legal environment for healthy growth and development of e-
commerce.

3. Secondary Liability of ISP cont..
• Secondary liability in China for trademark infringement online can be best understood in
the context of the three periods of e-commerce development that took place in the
country.
• During the embryonic stage (1999 to 2002), there were very few netizens and online
business operators, and a number of enterprises, including 8848—China’s e-commerce
enterprise flagship—rose but then quickly fell
• In the rising phase (2003 to 2007) that followed, small and medium-sized ecommerce
platforms like Alibaba
• —an e-commerce company that eventually established Taobao.com and other
businesses—began to make profits and a number of e-commerce providers, including E-
Commerce China Dangdang and EachNet, rose rapidly.

• There are several questions on the subject of online trademarks in China:
• How can trademark owners’ rights be protected when merchandise is distributed online
as opposed to through brick-and-mortar shops?
• Once trademark owners’ rights are infringed, are Internet service providers (ISPs)
responsible for infringements on their servers?
• Although the future impact of technological innovations on China’s legal framework
remains uncertain, the judicial practice in China is currently to examine secondary
liability for trademark infringement mainly in relation to search engines and platform
providers.
• The courts have not yet paid as much attention to the responsibilities of banks, credit
card companies or payment institutions. The paper tracks and identifies the main issues
in both Chinese judicial developments and legislative responses to secondary trademark
infringement online and attempts to summarize the policy issues behind them.

• Throughout this period, the number of online vendors increased
from
• 4 million to 35.5 million.3 An e-commerce boom began in 2008,
• and Alibaba, NetSun, Suning Appliance Company, GOME Electrical
Appliances and other traditional retailers became publicly traded
companies.
• Meanwhile, Redbaby and Beijing Jingdong Trading Co. entered into
and started the competition of businessto- consumer (B2C)
marketing.

4. Approach of Judiciary
• Courts in China generally demonstrate skepticism of secondary
liability claims for trademark infringement against online
intermediaries.
• As early as 2006, the Shanghai First Intermediate People’s Court
ruled that online intermediaries are not able to control
counterfeiting online by third parties.
• The court noted that the defendants, as online marketplace
operators, had established an intellectual property rights
reporting system in order to stop online intellectual property
violations, and therefore held it had reasonably exercised their
duty of care.

4. Approach of Judiciary cont..
• Moreover, the court noted that there are large numbers of
Internet users and online merchandisers, and consequently it
would be unrealistic to require online intermediaries like eBay to
investigate every piece of merchandise sold on their Web sites to
ensure it is legitimate.
• Furthermore, the court stated that even if the defendant has
made an ex ante investigation, it would still not be able to
guarantee the legitimacy of the commodities actually delivered
offline—i.e., third parties could post pictures of legitimate
products online but then deliver infringing products instead

• The Guangzhou Intermediate People’s court decided a similar case in 2006 that was
filed against Taobao.
• The court held that, because the online network extends globally, ISPs might not be
capable of ensuring the legality of goods sold through its networks, and that it was
therefore beyond the capacity of ISPs to be held responsible for possible infringement
of all of the goods sold by online vendors.
• Taobao—an online shopping site operated by Alibaba that is similar to Amazon or eBay—
had taken efforts in drafting and implementing rules with sanctions against
counterfeiting.
• As a result, the court held that Puma’s accusations that Taobao had failed to exercise
ex-ante investigations and ex-post remedial obligations and had assisted the direct
infringer Chen in violating Puma’s registered trademark rights were not justified.
• After this decision, the same reasoning was applied to similar cases by other courts in
China.

• It is important to keep in mind, however, that these early judgments were made with
regard to ISPs’ duty of care.
• Courts pointed out that the judiciary would not be permitted to impose a duty of care
on ISPs to verify the legality of online goods because such an obligation was not
stipulated statutorily.
• Courts did not therefore initially rely on concepts of secondary liability or even
contributory liability and instead approached the issue as one of direct infringement.
• Subsequent decisions, however, were based on secondary liability and applied the
safe harbor rule of copyright law by analogy,
• and courts have now formally introduced a doctrine of secondary or indirect
infringement into trademark infringement cases through the stipulation of
contributory liability.

• When viewed together, these decisions suggest that Chinese courts usually rule based on a
theory of contributory infringement—a form of joint tort—and that they focus at least in part
on whether the accused secondary infringer has the capacity to monitor or control the direct
infringer.
• This indicates that courts have, to some extent, made efforts to base their decisions on a
theory of vicarious liability.
• The courts, however, have not been successful in applying applicable statutory rules or
applying satisfactory reasoning to such decisions. Both Chinese legislation and some scholars
take a narrow approach to vicarious liability, arguing that the theory should be applied only in
the context of finding an employer liable for its employee’s act.
• On the other hand, Chinese copyright law has detailed provisions on contributory liability
comparable to Chinese tort law. Courts are therefore willing to approach copyright cases from
a contributory liability angle, since which rules are applicable is more clear than in the
trademark context.

• After the State Council promulgated the Regulation on the
Protection of the Right to Network Dissemination of Information
(the Dissemination Regulation) in 2006, courts began to refer to
the relevant provisions of copyright law on secondary
infringement.
• Drawing upon the laws of the United States and other developed
countries, the Dissemination Regulation describes specific
circumstances under which ISPs cannot be held liable for damages
caused by Internet users and specifies how a safe harbor should be
applied.

• Chinese judges seldom analyze concepts such as “use in commerce” when analyzing online
trademark infringement cases, in contrast with American courts.
• One explanation for this is that the Chinese trademark regime is based on registration, not
on use; registered trademarks are protected by Chinese law even if they have not yet been
put into commercial use.
• Moreover, trademark holders in the United States are more likely to file suit on grounds of
both direct and indirect infringement, requiring judges to decide whether the ISPs use the
trademark in commerce as direct infringers.
• In contrast, most Chinese courts will first examine the role ISPs play in the specific
circumstances of the case at issue, and define the duties of ISPs based on their conclusions.
• ISPs are not held liable if they act as intermediaries, but otherwise can be held to a level
of liability similar to that of direct infringers.

5. Duties of ISP
• Although courts usually consider ISPs intermediaries, ISPs still
assume some responsibility for online users’ conduct.
• As in other jurisdictions, Chinese legislation and regulations have
set thresholds ISPs must meet in order to claim immunity via the
safe harbor rule and avoid liability.
• In India the ISPs are not liable in certain defined situations but are
duty bound to ensure the proper utilization of the network.

6.Conclusion
• Although the Trademark Law of the People’s Republic of China does not include specific provisions about
secondary liability for trademark infringement online, the Tort Liability Law has generally stipulated liability
for infringement online.
• The application of this provision has yet to be examined further. Courts have gathered much experience
regarding how to decide cases on secondary liability for trademark infringement online, while decisions on
secondary liability for copyright infringement online have provided much insight into the validity of criticisms
and accolades brought by the practice of search engine advertising.
• Overall, both Chinese legislation and judicial practices have imposed comparatively lighter duties on online
intermediaries than on primary infringers, and only rule against online intermediaries under specific
circumstances:
• (1) when the intermediary has not taken measures after being made aware of suspected infringement;
• (2) when the measures taken by the intermediary are not effective enough to prevent further infringement or
(3) when the intermediary has shared the proceeds of transactions with a direct infringer, yet has failed to
exercise a relatively higher duty of care than would be required of a non-profit-sharing intermediary.

6.Conclusion Cont..
• It seems that the legal framework regulating Internet Intermediaries’
liability in India, China and in the United States is globally consistent ,
it has however received very different interpretations from different
Courts in India, China and in the United States.
• There are different bills and reforms recently introduced in India,
China and USA to address this problem but a more consistent
interpretation of our current legal frameworks and the
implementation of a wide range of business-driven solutions are
required.

Thank You for your Attention
Please get back to me for any further clarifications or doubts
tabrezahmad7@gmail.com ; tahmad@ddn.upes.ac.in

Trademark Infringements in E-commerce: A Comparative Study of India, China & USA

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (20)

Similar to Trademark Infringements in E-commerce: A Comparative Study of India, China & USA

Similar to Trademark Infringements in E-commerce: A Comparative Study of India, China & USA (20)

More from Prof. (Dr.) Tabrez Ahmad

More from Prof. (Dr.) Tabrez Ahmad (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Trademark Infringements in E-commerce: A Comparative Study of India, China & USA