wordpress blog stats
Connect with us

Hi, what are you looking for?

Flipkart believes online poll infringed its trademark, but won’t say how


In a response to MediaNama, Flipkart says that the website AmazonVsFlipkart.com did infringe its trademark, and even though it agrees that its legal notice to Amit Bhawani,the Editor in Chief of PhoneRadar.com, AndroidAdvices.com and GizmoReport.com, was worded “stronger than intended”. Flipkart believes that the legal notice was issued in the interest of safeguarding its goodwill, brand and trademarks.

The company had sent a legal notice to technology journalist Amit Bhawani,  saying that his site www.amazonvsflipkart.com, which was used to poll users about their views on quality of service of Amazon and Flipkart, had violated their trademark and was a case of cybersquatting. Flipkart’s statement, following MediaNama’s story on the issue:

“We respect the right to freedom of speech and endeavor to carry out research and polls. However, the legal notice was issued in the interest of safeguarding our goodwill, brand and trademarks. We contend that the language employed in the said notice was stronger than intended, and will make necessary corrections for any future communication. Pursuant to our notice, the offending trademark infringement has been taken down. In view of the above, our communication has now become irrelevant.”

Issues remain with Flipkart’s stand

1. The legal notice remains relevant whether Bhawani takes the site down or not: it is the threat that prevents someone from running a poll because he’s afraid that a multi-billion dollar corporation will take him to court.
2. Flipkart can’t respect the right to freedom of speech “and endeavor to carry out research and polls”, and at the same time refer to the poll website as an “offending trademark infringement”. In my opinion, that is disingenuous.
3. Flipkart hasn’t addressed any of the questions we mailed them, about what kind of a confusion this site might cause among consumers, any indication of commercial gain from running this poll, the relevance of commercial gain, or for that matter, the basis on which it was accusing Bhawani of cybersquatting.

The questions we had mailed Flipkart:

Advertisement. Scroll to continue reading.

1. On page 4 of your legal notice to Amit Bhawani, you mention that “an enormous likelihood of confusion amongst the relevant section of public connected” to Flipkart’s trademark is anticipated.

Q1. In the screenshot you’ve attached, both Flipkart and Amazon’s trademarks are showcased. Given that trademarks of both companies are showcased, what kind of confusion do you anticipate among the public?

2. In point 10 on page 4 and 5 of your legal notice, you’ve mentioned that “no third party can reproduce, communicate and publish without due permission or authority of our Client. In fact, it is pertinent to state that you have blatantly copied our Client’s artistic work and made illegal use of the same for commercial gains.”

Q2: Please explain how conducting a public poll does not constitute journalist research, and hence isn’t the usage of the trademark covered under ‘fair usage’?

Please note that even if it were for parody, the usage of trademarks is allowed. Incidentally, in case of Tata Sons vs Greenpeace International, Saikrishna Rajgopal, of Saikrishna & Associates (the firm which sent the legal notice on your behalf to Amit Bhawani), argued and won on the usage of trademarks for parody: http://indiankanoon.org/doc/562656/

To quote from that judgment: “the use of a trademark, as the object of a critical comment, or even attack, does not necessarily result in infringement.”

Advertisement. Scroll to continue reading.

Q3. Please indicate how Flipkart is aware that Amit Bhawani used the trademark for commercial gains, as you have alleged in the legal notice. Also, please share any details, if available, of commercial gains from running this poll.

Also, to quote from the Tata Sons vs Greenpeace case, “The mere fact that the expressive activity has a commercial element should not be determinative itself.”

The Tata Sons vs Greenpeace judgment also cites a US Supreme Court judgment, which reference to copyright: “If, indeed, commerciality carried presumptive force against a finding of fairness, the presumption would swallow nearly all of the illustrative uses listed in the preamble … including news reporting, comment, criticism, teaching, scholarship, and research, since these activities ‘are generally conducted for profit in this country’”

3. In point 11 you mention that there is great likelihood that actual or potential customers of Flipkart may be induced into believing that “services offered by you command the same level of reliability that is synonymous with the services of” Flipkart.

Q5. What services exactly were on offer on amazonvsflipkart.com, which merely hosted a poll daddy poll?

Q6. The legal notice also indicates that there is cybersquatting, with the usage of the domain nameamazonvsflipkart.com. Please explain how exactly flipkart believe that running a poll on amazonvsflipkart.com amounts to cybersquatting?

Advertisement. Scroll to continue reading.

In addition, we’ve sent Flipkart two more questions, given the statement they issued to us:

Q7. This suggests that you still believe that there was trademark infringement. Please indicate how running a poll which uses the Flipkart logo is a trademark infringement, in the context of the Tata Sons vs Greenpeace International case referred to earlier, which allowed the usage of trademarks even for purposes of criticism and parody.

Q8. Please explain how your legal notice has become irrelevant, given that the site was taken down because of the legal notice?
Q9. Please indicate whether you would take legal action against Mr Bhawani if the website were to come back up.

We’ll update with answers in case Flipkart responds.

Advertisement. Scroll to continue reading.
Written By

Founder @ MediaNama. TED Fellow. Asia21 Fellow @ Asia Society. Co-founder SaveTheInternet.in and Internet Freedom Foundation. Advisory board @ CyberBRICS

MediaNama’s mission is to help build a digital ecosystem which is open, fair, global and competitive.



The DSCI's guidelines are patient-centric and act as a data privacy roadmap for healthcare service providers.


In this excerpt from the book, the authors focus on personal data and autocracies. One in particular – Russia.  Autocracies always prioritize information control...


By Jai Vipra, Senior Resident Fellow at Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy The use of new technology, including facial recognition technology (FRT) by police...


By Stella Joseph, Prakhil Mishra, and Yash Desai The Government of India circulated proposed amendments to the Consumer Protection (E-Commerce) Rules, 2020 (“E-Commerce Rules”) which...


By Rahul Rai and Shruti Aji Murali A little less than a year since their release, the Consumer Protection (E-commerce) Rules, 2020 is being amended....

You May Also Like


Rajesh Kumar* doesn’t have many enemies in life. But, Uber, for which he drives a cab everyday, is starting to look like one, he...


By Aroon Deep and Aditya Chunduru You’re reading it here first: Twitter has complied with government requests to censor 52 tweets that mostly criticised...


135 job openings in over 60 companies are listed at our free Digital and Mobile Job Board: If you’re looking for a job, or...


Google has released a Google Travel Trends Report which states that branded budget hotel search queries grew 179% year over year (YOY) in India, in...

MediaNama is the premier source of information and analysis on Technology Policy in India. More about MediaNama, and contact information, here.

© 2008-2021 Mixed Bag Media Pvt. Ltd. Developed By PixelVJ

Subscribe to our daily newsletter
Your email address:*
Please enter all required fields Click to hide
Correct invalid entries Click to hide

© 2008-2021 Mixed Bag Media Pvt. Ltd. Developed By PixelVJ