Court Orders Amazon to Reinstate Avaia Ventures’ Listings Amid Alleged Misuse of Complaint Mechanism
In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court has issued an interim order restraining Wildship Enterprises Private Limited from issuing any further "groundless threats" of legal action against Avaia Ventures Private Limited regarding alleged copyright infringement. This order comes in light of the defendant's repeated copyright complaints on Amazon's platform, which the court determined to be unsubstantiated.
The case, presided over by Justice Tejas Karia, involved Avaia Ventures, a company engaged in online retail and re-selling of branded merchandise, and Wildship Enterprises, which operates under the brand 'Svastika'. The plaintiffs contended that Wildship's complaints to Amazon regarding copyright infringement were baseless and aimed at disrupting Avaia's business operations.
Justice Karia noted that Wildship had not pursued any meaningful infringement action in a competent court, a requirement under Section 60 of the Copyright Act, 1957, to legitimize such complaints. Furthermore, Wildship's products, alleged to be infringed, were found to have been industrially reproduced more than fifty times, negating any subsisting copyright as per Section 15(2) of the Act.
The court observed that the Kamdhenu cow with calf motif, central to the dispute, is part of the public domain, further weakening Wildship's claims. It was highlighted that the defendant admitted to only superficial differences between their products and those of Avaia, undermining any assertions of substantial similarity.
In response to the complaints, Amazon had deactivated the listings of Avaia Ventures, causing significant business disruption. The court directed Amazon to reinstate Avaia's product listings and remove any infringement records associated with Wildship's complaints.
The court's decision emphasizes the protection against groundless threats in intellectual property disputes, safeguarding businesses from misuse of intermediary complaint mechanisms. The case is scheduled for further hearing in September 2026.
Bottom line:-
Copyright infringement complaints filed without diligent prosecution of an infringement action before a competent court constitute "groundless threats" under Section 60 of the Copyright Act, 1957. Relief granted to Plaintiffs against such threats and misuse of intermediary complaint mechanisms.
Statutory provision(s): Copyright Act, 1957 Sections 15(2), 60, Commercial Courts Act, 2015 Section 12A, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Order XI Rule 1(4), Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2.
