- 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
- 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
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
Delhi High Court Passes Restraining Orders for 3 Websites Selling GS1 Barcode Numbers
The Delhi High Court in a hearing, issued orders to block and suspend the domain name and website posted as www.free-barcodes-shop.com.On 29th May 2020, the Delhi High Court had granted an ad-interim injunction in the favour of GS1 India in a suit for trademark infringement against ‘India Barcode Shop (Global Barcodes SL)’. Website hosting service providers were directed by the court to...
ToRead the Full Story, Subscribe to
Access the exclusive LEGAL ERAStories,Editorial and Expert Opinion
The Delhi High Court in a hearing, issued orders to block and suspend the domain name and website posted as www.free-barcodes-shop.com.
On 29th May 2020, the Delhi High Court had granted an ad-interim injunction in the favour of GS1 India in a suit for trademark infringement against ‘India Barcode Shop (Global Barcodes SL)’. Website hosting service providers were directed by the court to block and suspend the domain name and website hosted at www.indiabarcodeshop.com and https://india-barcodes-store.com. GS1 India holds a registered certification trademark and is licensed to allocate GS1 barcode numbers starting with ‘890’.
Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology and Department of Telecommunications under Ministry of Communications were asked to issue directions to internet service providers to ensure blocking of access to these websites.
The Court noted that due to misrepresentation by ‘India Barcode Shop’, customers are made to believe that the barcodes sold by India Barcode Shop are compliant with GS1 Standards and are assigned by GS1 India.
In response to the judgement, Mr. S. Swaminathan, COO, GS1 India said, “Unauthorised selling of GS1 barcode numbers (GTINs), starting with 890, by few websites, was creating problems for our subscribers and consumers, at large. Our customers were being misled by unauthorised barcode sellers and consumers were made to believe that unauthorised numbers could be authenticated using GS1 systems. Additionally, the numbers sold by third parties have been jeopardising retail ecosystem since there is no guarantee of their uniqueness. Further, the endeavour of unique identifying products gets compromised.”
He further added, “The order issued by the Delhi High Court holds importance in many ways. Firstly, we believe this will curb misleading activities in this regard. The order also safeguards the interest of consumers, besides manufacturers/brand owners, retailers and e-tailers, who have collaboratively invested for over 40 years in the GS1 system of standards and identification.”
Advocate Aditya Gupta, Attorney, Ira Law, said, “GS1 India’s 890 certification trademark serves a very important function. Consumers are assured that the barcode numbers starting with 890 are compliant with GS1 standards and the details regarding the allottee are readily available at the click of a button. This helps trace the entity responsible for the product and injects accountability in the system”.
GS1 India is the only authorised body to allocate GS1 barcode numbers (EAN) in India to uniquely identifying products and enable supply chains to be transparent and secure.
About GS1 India
GS1 India is a Standards body set up by the Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Government of India, along with apex trade bodies. It is an affiliate to the global supply chain standards organisation -- GS1 (Global), headquartered in Brussels, Belgium which oversee operations of GS1 member organisations in 115 countries.