A civil court in Bengaluru has issued an interim injunction preventing two manufacturers from using the brand/trade name “ROWDY,” which was created by Telugu actor Vijay Deverakonda, to sell replica apparel until the case is resolved. The application filed by Rowdywear Pvt. Ltd. was partially approved by Additional City Civil Judge Padma Prasad, who also issued a restraining order against ram hosiery and one Satish Kumar, the owner of Saanvi Textiles, to prevent them from using the trademark and selling counterfeit goods.
The court declined to issue any orders against the online retailer amazon, but it did place a requirement that it takes down any URLS that violate the plaintiff’s rights to the term “rowdy” after receiving further details about the situation. According to the plaintiff company, Vijay Deverakonda, who is well-known for his work in Telugu cinema, created the clothing line and brand rowdy, which it owns and operates. The trademark registration applications in this regard are currently being reviewed.
In the meantime, it discovered that amazon was offering to sell a number of knockoff t-shirts with the name “generic” that were identical to the plaintiff’s t-shirt and had the rowdy trademarks printed on the front of each one. In light of this context, the plaintiff corporation asserted that “rowdy” and any trademark or logo listed in the complaint are completely and exclusively linked with it and are recognized by the public. Additionally, it was claimed that the producer and distributor of the fake goods purposefully hid their identities in order to shield themselves from legal and criminal penalties.
Amazon argued against the lawsuit by claiming that it is an intermediary covered by the information technology act of 2000, that it has offered an online market place where merchants may advertise goods for sale, and that it also offers services to the marketplace. Therefore, it doesn’t take an active part in the transaction that took place on its platform. Additionally, it was claimed that simply displaying trademarks on the platform does not constitute using them, as the listings in which they are featured were wholly uploaded at the request of third-party merchants. Further, the intermediary is not responsible for the listing or sale of the disputed products, according to Section 79 of the Information and Technology Act of 2000.
The court noted after reviewing the records that the plaintiff company’s documents, particularly the PAN card information and GST numbers, along with other documents at this time, prima facie show that the above-named manufacturers (defendants 5 and 6) uploaded counterfeit products to Amazon under the brand name “Rowdy.” The Court issued a ruling that stated, “The material on the record further shows that the defendant nos. 5 and 6 are to be restricted as sought in IA No.1 from using the plaintiff’s trade name for their subpar products.”
With regard to Amazon, the Court determined that the plaintiff business had failed to demonstrate any connection between Amazon and the private defendants. No evidence was shown to support the claim that Amazon or its affiliated companies, who are also named as defendants, posted or authorized the upload of any goods that are either comparable to or confusingly similar to the plaintiff’s items from the two producers. Because of this, amazon is not subjected to any interim orders.
DUCTUS EDGE 