- Home
- News
- Articles+
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- News
- Articles
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
Delhi High Court orders Amazon to abstain from selling Pakistani Rooh Afza
Delhi High Court orders Amazon to abstain from selling Pakistani Rooh Afza
Hamdard stated the product did not comply with the legal requirements of the Rules that govern such products
The Delhi High Court has granted relief to Hamdard National Foundation (India), the manufacturer of Rooh Afza. It restrained Amazon from listing any product on its website, which infringes Hamdard's trademark Rooh Afza.
In the Hamdard National Foundation India & Anr vs Amazon India & Anr case, the single-judge bench of Justice Prathiba M Singh specifically restrained the e-commerce platform from selling and offering for sale Rooh Afza manufactured in Pakistan.
Hamdard had filed a suit against two companies, Amazon India Limited and Golden Leaf, related to the product and its mark Rooh Afza.
Hamdard maintained that it was engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling various Unani and Ayurvedic medicines, oils, syrups and non-alcoholic beverages, including the popular drink Rooh Afza.
It submitted that the company's history dated back over 100 years when well-known Unani practitioner 'Hakeem Hafiz Abdul Majeed' set up the Unani clinic under the name Hamdard Dawakhana.
It was aggrieved because on Amazon's website www.amazon.in Golden Leaf started selling and offering for sale the product Rooh Afza. The petitioner informed that upon purchasing the product online, to its utter shock and surprise, Hamdard found that it was manufactured in Pakistan!
The company maintained that the product did not comply with the legal requirements of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009, the Legal Metrology (Commodities) Rules, 2011, and the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, which govern such products.
The matter was first heard in September and the court observed that Rooh Afza was a product consumed by Indian households for over a century. It directed Amazon and other sellers to remove all listings from its website of a manufacturer claiming it was Rooh Afza Pakistani.
Considering it could have an adverse impact on the consumers, as the details of the seller were not known, the court had stated, "Since www.amazonindia.in claims to be an intermediary, it has an obligation to disclose the names of the sellers, their contact details, etc on the product listings."
Justice Singh had further directed the listings of all Rooh Afza products to be removed from the website within 48 hours.
The matter was taken up recently and Hamdard submitted that all the infringing listings were taken down and the relief sought in its plaint stood satisfied.
Ruling in favor of Hamdard, the bench directed that in case any other listings infringing the plaintiff's mark were found by the plaintiff, it should be brought to the notice of Amazon. The same will have to be removed in accordance with the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021.