International exhaustion and intermediary safe harbour defeat interim restraints on e-commerce resale and platform liability.

Model Direct Selling Guidelines, 2016 did not acquire binding statutory force and could not be enforced against private e-commerce platforms and sellers. The claims of trademark infringement, passing off, misrepresentation, dilution and tarnishment were not sustainably established at the interlocutory stage, and lawful resale was protected by the doctrine of international exhaustion under the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The platforms were not shown on the pleadings and materials to fall outside intermediary safe harbour under Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000. Tortious interference with contractual relations was also not made out at the interim stage, so the interlocutory injunction could not stand.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the Direct Selling Guidelines, 2016 had the force of law and were binding on the e-commerce platforms and sellers; (ii) whether the sale of the plaintiffs' products on e-commerce platforms amounted to trademark infringement, passing off, misrepresentation, dilution or tarnishment, and whether the principle of exhaustion under the Trade Marks Act, 1999 applied; (iii) whether the e-commerce platforms were intermediaries entitled to the statutory safe harbour; and (iv) whether the platforms were guilty of tortious interference with the plaintiffs' contractual relations with their direct sellers.

Issue (i): whether the Direct Selling Guidelines, 2016 had the force of law and were binding on the e-commerce platforms and sellers.

Analysis: The guidelines were issued as a model framework and advisory to States and Union Territories under the consumer protection regime. They were not framed as statutory rules and did not themselves create enforceable legal obligations against private parties. The subsequent draft rules under the consumer protection legislation showed that the guidelines were only a template for future rule-making, not binding law in their own right.

Conclusion: The Direct Selling Guidelines, 2016 were not law and were not enforceable as binding rules against the appellants.

Issue (ii): whether the sale of the plaintiffs' products on e-commerce platforms amounted to trademark infringement, passing off, misrepresentation, dilution or tarnishment, and whether the principle of exhaustion under the Trade Marks Act, 1999 applied.

Analysis: The suits were not framed as infringement or passing-off actions, and the pleadings did not establish trademark ownership in the manner assumed below. The doctrine of international exhaustion under Section 30 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 was applicable to lawfully acquired goods, and the alleged restrictions on onward online resale could not be enforced against third parties in the absence of a valid statutory basis. The materials relied on at the interlocutory stage were insufficient to justify conclusive findings of tampering, impairment, misrepresentation or dilution as against the individual platforms.

Conclusion: The findings of trademark infringement, passing off, misrepresentation, dilution and tarnishment were unsustainable, and the appellants were entitled to invoke the principle of exhaustion.

Issue (iii): whether the e-commerce platforms were intermediaries entitled to the statutory safe harbour.

Analysis: Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 grants a safe harbour to intermediaries subject to the statutory conditions. The statutory scheme does not confine the protection to purely passive entities, and the question whether the platforms' additional services took them outside the definition of intermediary could not be conclusively determined without trial. The interlocutory findings treated the safe harbour as unavailable on a conclusory basis, which was not justified on the pleadings and materials before the Court.

Conclusion: The appellants were not shown at the interlocutory stage to be outside the protection of Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

Issue (iv): whether the platforms were guilty of tortious interference with the plaintiffs' contractual relations with their direct sellers.

Analysis: A claim for inducement to breach of contract requires a viable contractual nexus and proof of active inducement. Mere knowledge of the plaintiffs' internal restrictions or the provision of marketplace and logistical services was insufficient to establish the tort at the interlocutory stage. The question turned on disputed facts and evidence and could not be conclusively resolved in interim proceedings.

Conclusion: Tortious interference was not established against the appellants at the interlocutory stage.

Final Conclusion: The impugned interlocutory injunction could not be sustained because the foundational findings on the status of the direct selling guidelines, trademark infringement, intermediary liability and tortious interference were set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: Model guidelines or advisory instructions do not acquire enforceable statutory force merely by gazette publication, and in the absence of a valid statutory prohibition, lawful resale of goods is governed by the principle of international exhaustion while intermediary protection under Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 remains available subject to the statutory conditions.

---