Inducement To Infringe Cases India
I. Contributory Infringement – Concept
Contributory infringement is a type of secondary liability in intellectual property law, where a party who does not directly infringe a trademark or copyright is held liable because they actively facilitate, induce, or contribute to the infringement by others.
In India, contributory infringement primarily arises under:
Trademarks – Trade Marks Act, 1999
Section 29(1) and related provisions
Example: If a supplier provides tools, software, or materials knowing they will be used to infringe, they can be liable.
Copyrights – Copyright Act, 1957
Section 51, 52, and related provisions
Example: Internet service providers, platforms hosting pirated content.
Key Principle:
The defendant does not need to use the mark or copyright directly, but must have knowledge or reason to know their contribution will lead to infringement.
II. Important Case Laws on Contributory Infringement in India
1. Tata Sons Ltd. v. Greenpeace International (2011)
Delhi High Court
Facts:
Greenpeace used Tata’s logo in a campaign criticizing environmental practices.
Greenpeace argued it was for public interest, not commercial gain.
Issue:
Can parties indirectly facilitate infringement if the use is non-commercial but causes reputational harm?
Judgment:
Court acknowledged that direct commercial use is key, but also noted that contributory actions can be liable if they intentionally cause misuse of the mark.
Key Principle:
Contributory infringement includes indirect facilitation if done intentionally.
2. Yahoo! Inc. v. Akash Arora & Anr. (1999)
Delhi High Court
Facts:
Yahoo! sued an Indian webmaster who was linking to adult content hosted on Yahoo’s servers, arguing the links caused trademark and copyright violation.
Issue:
Can someone providing access or links be liable for contributory infringement?
Judgment:
Court held that providing tools or access with knowledge that infringement will occur constitutes contributory infringement.
Principle Applied to F&B/Other Industries:
Suppliers, distributors, or platforms cannot claim innocence if they knowingly facilitate infringement.
3. Rediff Communications Ltd. v. Cyberbooth & Ors. (2000)
Delhi High Court
Facts:
Rediff (email and web services) sued Cyberbooth, an Internet café, for allowing users to send emails containing infringing content.
Issue:
Can service providers be held liable for infringing acts of their users?
Judgment:
Court held the café was liable only if it had knowledge or failed to prevent infringement after notice.
Key Takeaways:
Mere provision of services does not constitute contributory infringement
Knowledge and inducement are essential
4. Intel Corporation v. Deepak Mahajan (2004)
Delhi High Court
Facts:
Defendant was selling counterfeit Intel processors.
He also sold software and tools to help others sell fake processors.
Issue:
Can supplying tools for infringement lead to secondary liability?
Judgment:
Court ruled that supplying tools with knowledge of misuse is contributory infringement.
Injunction and damages were granted.
Principle:
Knowledge + active contribution = liability, even if the defendant did not sell the infringing product directly.
5. Super Cassettes Industries Ltd. v. Myspace Inc. (2010)
Bombay High Court
Facts:
Myspace hosted user-uploaded songs, many of which were pirated.
SCIL claimed Myspace was contributing to copyright infringement.
Issue:
Are online platforms liable for contributory infringement?
Judgment:
Court held that if the platform had knowledge or failed to act after notice, it could be liable.
Principle:
Applied knowledge + facilitation test
Precursor to intermediary liability provisions in the IT Act, Section 79
6. Balaji Telefilms Ltd. v. Star India Pvt. Ltd. (2014)
Facts:
Star India broadcasted shows in a format similar to Balaji’s copyrighted content.
Allegation: Star indirectly contributed to infringement by replicating content structure and scripts.
Judgment:
Court acknowledged that contributory infringement can arise if one party induces or abets infringement, even indirectly.
Injunction was granted to prevent broadcasting.
Principle:
Contributory liability can extend to indirect replication and facilitation.
7. Yahoo! Inc. v. Akash Arora & Ors. (Repeated but notable)
Often cited as the landmark contributory infringement case in India
Establishes knowledge and facilitation test
III. Key Legal Principles from Indian Case Law
Direct vs Contributory:
Direct infringement = using/trading mark or copyright
Contributory = aiding, inducing, or providing tools for infringement
Knowledge is essential:
Liability arises when the defendant knows or has reason to know of the infringement
Notice matters:
In online or distribution cases, receiving notice and failing to act can trigger liability
Intentional facilitation:
Active contribution, even without profit, can constitute infringement
Scope:
Applies to trademarks, copyright, and sometimes patents
Crucial in digital platforms, suppliers, and intermediaries
IV. Conclusion
Contributory infringement in India is well-established but knowledge-dependent. Courts consistently apply:
Knowledge + Facilitation + Infringing act by third party = Liability
This principle protects rights holders without penalizing innocent intermediaries. Cases like Yahoo!, Rediff, Intel, Myspace, and Tata Sons have shaped the doctrine and continue to guide online and offline F&B, tech, and creative industries.
RELATED Blog
comments