Site navigation

In Christian Louboutin SAS v Nakul Bajaj (Delhi High Court, 2018), the operators of the website…

The Court held that section 79(3)(a) limits the exemption to platforms that do not aid, abet or induce the unlawful act, and that "Any active contribution by the platform or…

Choose your answer

In Christian Louboutin SAS v Nakul Bajaj (Delhi High Court, 2018), the operators of the website darveys.com claimed the safe harbour of section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 as mere intermediaries. The Court held that

Select one answer
Answer and explanation

Correct answer D

The Court held that section 79(3)(a) limits the exemption to platforms that do not aid, abet or induce the unlawful act, and that "Any active contribution by the platform or online market place completely removes the ring of protection". It also said that following the guidelines does not automatically show the platform is not conspiring or aiding. A platform that takes an active part in the unlawful sale therefore cannot claim the safe harbour.

Practice for these exams

Related exam syllabi

Related questions in this topic