What was decided in Christian Louboutin v. Nakul Bajaj?

The Court directed disclosure of seller details and authenticity certificates and held that misuse of meta-tags and brand goodwill could not be shielded by Section 79 IT Act.

Does Section 79 always protect marketplaces?

No. If a platform actively promotes or benefits from counterfeit listings or uses brand meta-tags to ride on reputation, safe harbour can be lost.

What role does the Inwood test play?

It examines whether, with knowledge or awareness of counterfeits, a seller or platform continued to supply or failed to control the instrumentality of infringement.

What compliance steps did the Court highlight?

Disclose sellers, obtain and show authenticity certificates, remove infringing meta-tags, and be transparent about product and seller authenticity.

Christian Louboutin SAS v. Nakul Bajaj & Ors

Christian Louboutin SAS v. Nakul Bajaj & Ors (2018)

Delhi High Court Trademark / IT 2018 Single Bench 2018 SCC OnLine Del 12215 ~6 min read

Author: Gulzar Hashmi Location: India Published: 01 Nov 2025

CASE_TITLE: Christian Louboutin SAS v. Nakul Bajaj & Ors PRIMARY_KEYWORDS: Section 79 IT Act, intermediary liability SECONDARY_KEYWORDS: Inwood test, meta-tags, counterfeit, trademark infringement

Quick Summary

The Delhi High Court looked at a luxury resale website that showed Christian Louboutin products as “100% authentic,” used brand images, and relied on meta-tags. The Court said: safe harbour under Section 79 IT Act is not a shield when a platform rides on brand reputation or lets counterfeits pass. Disclosure of sellers and authenticity documents was ordered. The Inwood test guided the Court on knowledge and control over infringement tools.

Keywords: intermediary liability, Inwood test, Section 79, meta-tags, counterfeit

```

Issues

Does Section 79 of the IT Act protect the platform that used the Plaintiff’s marks, images, and meta-tags?
If relief is due, what duties and disclosures should be imposed on the platform?

Rules

Inwood Test: If a seller/platform knows or is willfully blind to counterfeits and still supplies tools that enable sales, liability can arise.
Section 79 IT Act: Safe harbour applies to passive intermediaries that follow due diligence. It can be lost if the intermediary actively participates or promotes infringement.

Facts (Timeline)

Brand & Goodwill

Christian Louboutin sells luxury goods through authorised channels; the founder’s name and images carry strong goodwill.

Website Operations

Defendants ran darveys.com, listed a full catalogue, used brand images/logos, and claimed 100% authenticity.

Allegations

Plaintiff said goods were counterfeit/impairing, the site suggested affiliation, and meta-tags traded on the brand’s reputation.

Proceedings

Interim relief earlier; final prayer sought permanent injunction and Section 79 analysis before the Delhi High Court.

Timeline illustration for Christian Louboutin v. Nakul Bajaj

Arguments

Plaintiff

Use of marks, images, and full catalogue suggested affiliation and harmed brand value.
Counterfeits were enabled; meta-tags diverted traffic by leveraging goodwill.
Platform was not a passive intermediary; Section 79 protection should not apply.

Defendants

Claimed marketplace role and safe harbour under Section 79.
Assured authenticity; argued absence of direct knowledge of counterfeits.
Said meta-tags and listings were standard e-commerce practices.

Judgment

The Court dismissed the suit but imposed strict compliance duties: disclose complete seller details, obtain and display authenticity certificates, remove all infringing meta-tags, and make seller/product authenticity clear to buyers. The Court noted that using meta-tags to ride on the brand’s reputation cannot be defended under Section 79 safe harbour.

Ratio

Active participation removes safe harbour: A marketplace that amplifies listings with brand meta-tags, full catalogues, or affiliation cues, and ignores risks of counterfeits, may lose Section 79 protection under the Inwood knowledge/control principles.

Why It Matters

Sets due-diligence standards for Indian marketplaces on luxury goods.
Warns against using brand meta-tags and imagery to gain traffic.
Shows how Inwood ideas shape Indian intermediary liability.

Key Takeaways

Section 79 protects passive intermediaries, not active promoters.
Meta-tag misuse can evidence unfair advantage and trademark misuse.
Seller disclosure and authenticity checks are essential compliance steps.

Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook

Mnemonic: “TAG → TRAFFIC → TROUBLE”

TAG: Platform uses brand meta-tags/images.
TRAFFIC: Gains business off the brand’s name.
TROUBLE: Loses safe harbour; must disclose and verify.

IRAC Outline

Issue: Can the platform claim Section 79 protection while using the brand’s marks, images, and meta-tags?

Rule: Inwood knowledge/control; Section 79 safe harbour only for due-diligent, passive intermediaries.

Application: Use of meta-tags, full catalogue, and “authentic” claims indicated active involvement and brand-riding.

Conclusion: Safe harbour narrowed; strict disclosures and authenticity verification ordered.

Glossary

Section 79 IT Act: Indian safe-harbour rule for intermediaries who act passively and follow due diligence.
Inwood Test: Liability where a seller/platform knows of counterfeits yet continues to supply means for sales.
Meta-tags: Hidden page tags/keywords that can draw search traffic using brand names.