Our firm advises Info Edge, one of India’s publicly listed premier technology companies operating multiple market-leading digital platforms including Naukri.com (employment), Jeevansathi (matrimonial services), 99Acres.com (real estate), AmbitionBox (employee reviews), and Shiksha.com (education), among others. We provide regulatory guidance across intermediary liability, data protection, platform governance and consumer protection frameworks - aiming to create robust compliance frameworks that support business scalability and objectives.
We acted for Info Edge in a Delhi High Court appeal successfully challenging a lower court interim order restraining AmbitionBox from using a third party's trade name on their web-portal www.ambitionbox.com for inviting or permitting users to post reviews about its work culture. This threatened AmbitionBox’ core value proposition of hosting anonymous employee reviews.
The third party alleged trade mark and copyright infringement, passing off and defamation on account of certain negative reviews posted by users on the platform. Info Edge’s stand was that it provides a neutral user - driven platform which hosts third-party content in the form of reviews and ratings, and serves as an important source of information for job seekers to evaluate the work culture, compensation etc. at prospective employer organisations. The platform neither initiates, authors, edits, selects the receiver of, modifies nor endorses such content. Further, it has a multi-tier content review mechanism to take down any content which does not adhere to its Community Guidelines . It was argued that the Order effectively compels the Appellant to apply its own mind to whether the content on its platform should or should not be blocked, proactively screen user content, and publish only "bonafide, identified and factual reviews". It was also argued that anonymity on the platform is designed to protect free speech of employees against employers. It is because of this model that several users feel comfortable in speaking up, sometimes to highlight inter alia workplace harassment, favouritism, biasness or pay disparity. It was argued that the interim order did not adequately account for the fundamental right to free speech of users of the platform, and that the directions, if maintained, risked operating as a broad restraint on user speech in the garb of trade mark protection.
The Hon’ble High Court set aside the interim order and disposed of the appeal, and decreed the suit, in terms of an undertaking from the Appellant reflecting established safe harbour and due diligence principles: notice-driven content review, defined takedown criteria, and user disclosure only pursuant to valid legal or judicial process.
"Ikigai Law combined a deep understanding of platform liability law with a real appreciation for what makes our platform work, and got us a fast, favourable result."
- Sudeep Shrivastava, Head Legal, Info Edge
The Ikigai Law team on this matter comprised of Aman Taneja (Partner), Rishabh Sharma (Of counsel) and Vanshika Thapliyal (Associate). Ikigai Law briefed Swathi Sukumar, Senior Advocate to argue the matter in court. The Delhi High Court order is available at https://indiankanoon.org/doc/134786116/
Image credits: AI-generated
Author credits: By Anirudh Rastogi (Managing Partner, Ikigai Law)
