Socks Branded 'MARC' Sold As ' Marc Jacobs' on Amazon, Chandigarh State Commission Holds Amazon, Its Seller Liable For Unfair Trade Practices

The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh bench comprising Justice Raj Shekhar Attri (President) and Mr Rajesh K. Arya (Member) held Amazon and its listed seller, V.K. Knitting Industries liable for unfair and restrictive trade practices for selling socks under the name of 'Marc Jacobs', which in reality had the branding of 'MARC'. Amazon continued to list it under Marc Jacobs' brand name for 4 years and the seller failed to cease the sale. The State Commission directed them to pay an exemplary compensation of Rs. 2 lakhs.Brief Facts:The Complainant ordered a pair of socks branded as "Marc Jacobs" for Rs.279.30/- from Amazon. Upon delivery on February 25, 2023, he discovered the socks bore the brand name "MARC" instead of "Marc Jacobs", manufactured by V.K. Knitting Industries. The Complainant contended that the socks he received were not the product displayed on Amazon's website. The Complainant's attempts to return the product were futile as there was no option for return or replacement. Despite numerous calls to Amazon's customer care, the Complainant's grievances were not addressed, leading to monetary loss, mental anguish, and harassment due to the sale of what they perceive as fake products under the guise of original luxury brands. Feeling aggrieved, the Complainant approached the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T., Chandigarh (“State Commission”) and filed a consumer complaint against Amazon and V.K. Knitting Industries.In response, V.K. Knitting Industries denied liability, stating that it manufactures socks under the brand name "marc", not "Marc Jacobs". It argued that Amazon is responsible for product information displayed on its platform, and despite notifying Amazon of the error, it persisted. V.K. Knitting Industries asserted that it cannot be held accountable for Amazon's negligence and denied the Complainant's allegations, claiming the complaint was misconceived and lacked merit.On the other hand, Amazon contended that the State Commission did not have the pecuniary jurisdiction to adjudicate on the matter. It further submitted that as per its return policy, innerwear garments cannot be returned. Further, Amazon is a mere supplier of the product.Observations by the State Commission:The State Commission noted socks delivered to the Complainant were branded as "MARC," whereas the registered product of V.K. Knitting Industries was labelled in small letters as "marc." However, on Amazon's portal, the brand "Marc Jacobs" was depicted, enticing the Complainant to make the purchase. Despite repeated notifications from V.K. Knitting Industries to correct the brand name from "Marc Jacobs" to "MARC," Amazon continued to display erroneous information, even at the time of the hearing of the case.Further, the State Commission held that Amazon knowingly sold products branded as "MARC" manufactured by V.K. Knitting Industries under the guise of the luxury brand "Marc Jacobs." This misrepresentation persisted for over four years despite notifications to correct the error. Regarding Amazon's return policy, although socks are classified as non-returnable under the category of clothing and accessories, the State Commission held that the policy explicitly stated that in the event of receiving a different, damaged, or defective item, a full refund or replacement is available. As the delivered product did not match the advertised brand, Amazon was obligated to refund the full payment or provide a replacement, which it failed to do.The State Commission noted that the Consumer Protection (E-Commerce) Rules, 2020, prohibit unfair trade practices by sellers on marketplace e-commerce platforms. It held that sellers are mandated to accurately represent their products and are liable to refund or replace items that do not meet the advertised characteristics or features. It held that Amazon's actions violate these regulations and the Sale of Goods Act, of 1930, which stipulates that goods delivered must correspond with the sample provided.Despite this knowledge, the State Commission held that V.K. Knitting Industries did not take any steps to cease the sale of its goods through Amazon's web portal. This inaction, despite being fully aware of the misrepresentation, according to the State Commission suggested complicity in the deceptive practices employed by Amazon.Considering the mental agony and harassment suffered by the Complainant, the State Commission directed Amazon and V.K. Knitting Industries to pay exemplary compensation of Rs. 2 lakhs to the Complainant, along with a refund of Rs. 279.30 ps. with 9% interest per annum. They were also directed to pay Rs. 20,000/- for the litigation costs incurred by the Complainant. Additionally, they were directed to deposit Rs. 25 lakhs as damages in the Legal Aid Account of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission for engaging in unfair and restrictive trade practices.Case Title : Jatin Bansal v Ms Amazon Reseller Services Pvt Ltd And...

Socks Branded 'MARC' Sold As ' Marc Jacobs' on Amazon, Chandigarh State Commission Holds Amazon, Its Seller Liable For Unfair Trade Practices

Smita Singh

Tags