Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

F4. Question (iv) - Whether e-commerce platforms 306 - 318 such as Amazon, Snapdeal, Flipkart, 1MG, and Healthkart are guilty of tortious interference with the contractual relationship of the Plaintiffs with their distributors/direct sellers? 

     G. CONCLUSIONS AND RELIEF                                                319 - 337


A.      INTRODUCTION

1. The old adage, which translates to ―with great power comes great responsibility‖, popularised by a famous movie based on a comic book series, in modern day world would be applicable to e-commerce platforms, which have penetrated all forms of trade, commerce and businesses. The contribution of e-commerce in providing accessible global platforms for traders, craftsmen, traditional artists, home designers, housewives etc., along with the credit for creation of large infrastructural facilities such as warehouses, transportation, etc., as also employment for thousands of people, is well acknowledged. However, there are certain safeguards that need to be followed so as to ensure that existing businesses and trades are not adversely impacted by the growth of e-commerce, without requisite checks in place. The present cases highlight the conflict that can arise between one such existing form of business/trade viz., Direct Selling Businesses and e-commerce platforms. The legal complexities in this conflict involve Constitutional issues, intellectual property rights, information technology laws, consumer protection laws, contractual laws, law of torts, and other applicable guidelines.

 That the trademark and tradename ―AMWAY‖ was being used on e- commerce platforms without Amway‟s consent;  That neither the e-commerce websites, nor any of the sellers had obtained any consent from Amway for sale of Amway branded products on their platforms;
 That sale of Amway branded products on e-commerce websites was in violation of the Guidelines;
 That the sale of Amway branded products is also violative of Amway‟s intellectual property rights, and also constituted tortious interference with Amway‟s Direct Selling Agreements with its distributors;

17. It is further pleaded that Amway representatives purchased various products from the Defendants, and it was noticed that the unique code was also erased/removed so as to make it difficult to track the ABO, if any, from whom the product may have been purchased. This further gave rise to an apprehension that the products are being tampered with by the sellers. According to Amway, none of the sellers, selling Amway branded products on e-commerce websites, are authorised or have any consent to sell Amway products online. It is, thus, claimed that the manner in which Amway branded products are being sold on e-commerce platforms, clearly, shows that there is tortious interference with the Plaintiffs‟ contracts i.e. the Direct Selling Agreement and Code of Ethics, and that there is tampering of the products due to the removal of the unique code. The reputation of the products is being tarnished and interfered with, considering the large variance in the refund/return policy as also the warranty for the products. The reputation of Amway is also being affected due to change in prices of good, and brings the authenticity of the goods into question. Further, due to tampering/removal of the unique codes of Amway, even if the products were genuine, the Defendants do not qualify to claim the defence of Section 30 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.

vii) Submissions by Mr. Darpan Wadhwa, Ld. Senior Counsel for Flipkart in CS(OS)531/2018

138. Mr. Darpan Wadhwa, Ld. Senior Counsel appearing for Flipkart submits that there is no basis in the plaint to allege that Flipkart is conspiring with the sellers in any manner. The sale is in fact not by Flipkart but by Defendant Nos.2 and 3 who are the actual sellers. They have, in turn, bought the products from two other sellers who are not direct sellers of the Plaintiffs. A failure by the Plaintiffs to ―reign in‖ their own distributors and ABOs cannot form the basis of a cause of action against the Defendants. The guidelines which were framed to protect consumer interest cannot be used against intermediaries. There is no plea of tortious interference in the plaint except in three places. In order to establish tortious interference, clear details ought to be provided and the plaint is, thus, lacking in material particulars to establish a tort.