The Delhi High Court has held that a prima facie case of passing off exists against multiple third-party sellers who allegedly exploited Flipkart’s “latching on” feature to misuse the Shapermen brand. The ruling adds to the growing jurisprudence on e-commerce intermediary liability and trademark protection. In the Flipkart trademark infringement dispute, the Court restrained the sellers from using the marks “Shapermen” and “Shaper men,” or any deceptively similar marks, on Flipkart or any other e-commerce or quick-commerce platform until the next hearing.
What Is Flipkart’s ‘Latching On’ Feature?
The dispute centres on a structural feature of Flipkart’s seller platform. The “latching on” feature allows third-party sellers to add products under an existing brand listing and use photographs of that brand’s products. Sellers can access this option through the “Opportunities” section under the “Listings” tab.
Flipkart introduced the feature to encourage competition among multiple sellers. However, several sellers have allegedly exploited it to benefit from a brand owner’s goodwill without permission or accountability.
Background of the Shapermen Complaint
Shapermen, a men’s shapewear and compression garment brand, approached the Delhi High Court alleging misuse of the latching on feature. According to the company, several third-party sellers marketed their own products under the Shapermen brand without authorisation.
The complaint states that the defendants copied product descriptions and images from Shapermen’s original listings. They allegedly used these listings to mislead customers into buying their own products. The sellers also offered products at prices ranging from ₹90 to ₹230, while the genuine products carried an MRP of ₹1,299. Shapermen argued that these products were counterfeit and of inferior quality.
The company also conducted test purchases in May. It found that the delivered products contained no Shapermen branding, labels, tags, or inserts. According to the company, the sellers used its brand name merely as “bait.”
Allegations Against Flipkart
The suit also questioned Flipkart’s conduct as an intermediary. Shapermen claimed that it repeatedly complained about unauthorised sellers using its brand name and product images. Despite these complaints, Flipkart allegedly failed to take action.
The company argued that Flipkart did not fulfil its due diligence obligations under Section 79 of the Information Technology Act. It therefore alleged that the platform became complicit in the passing off.
Section 79 grants intermediaries safe harbour protection for third-party content. However, this protection applies only when intermediaries exercise due diligence and act after receiving actual knowledge of infringement. Shapermen argued that Flipkart lost this protection because it allegedly ignored repeated complaints.
Delhi High Court’s Findings
After examining the material on record, the Delhi High Court found a prima facie case of passing off against the defendants.
The Court observed that the sellers exploited the “latching on” feature by inserting themselves as alternative sellers under Shapermen’s product listings. It further noted that the listings continued to display the Shapermen marks, product photographs, and listing content.
The Court held that an average consumer could reasonably believe that the sellers’ products originated from or were connected with Shapermen. It observed that this likelihood of confusion satisfied the established principles governing deceptive similarity under trademark law.
Court’s Directions
The Court issued several interim directions. It restrained the sellers from using the Shapermen and Shaper men marks, or any deceptively similar marks, on Flipkart or any other e-commerce or quick-commerce platform.
It also directed Flipkart to delist, remove, or disable access to the disputed listings.
If Shapermen reports additional unauthorised latching-on listings, Flipkart must suspend, block, disable access to, and delist them within 72 hours of receiving notice. The Court also directed Flipkart to disclose the details of the concerned sellers within seven days of such notification.
These directions impose time-bound obligations on the platform and strengthen enforcement against Flipkart trademark infringement on e-commerce marketplaces.
A Continuing Judicial Trend
This is not the first time the Delhi High Court has examined the misuse of Flipkart’s latching on feature. In 2024, the Court observed that sellers cannot use the feature to market counterfeit products or mislead consumers about the source of goods.
The Shapermen order reinforces that judicial approach. It recognises that the current latching on mechanism remains vulnerable to systematic trademark abuse.
Broader Implications
The dispute raises an important policy question. Should every brand owner approach the courts individually to stop counterfeit sellers from misusing trademarks on e-commerce platforms?
Current judicial remedies mainly provide brand-specific injunctions and takedown directions. This places a significant burden on trademark owners, particularly MSMEs that may lack the resources to pursue lengthy litigation.
MediaNama founder and editor Nikhil Pahwa has proposed structural reforms. He suggests allowing brands to decide which sellers may use their trademarks in listings. He also recommends an automated approval system that requires a brand’s consent before any seller lists products under its trademark.
Such reforms could reduce counterfeit sales, improve marketplace trust, and minimise trademark disputes. Until then, the Shapermen order signals that courts will continue to play a central role in protecting brands. It also makes clear that intermediaries with knowledge of infringement cannot automatically rely on safe harbour protection if they fail to act.
