under this section shall be supplementary to and not in derogation of the provisions of the copyright Act or the Patents Act.” (xiii) This position was also upheld by this Court in the context of a trademark infringement case against e-commerce platforms in Christian Louboutin Sas v. Nakul Bajaj &Ors., (2018) 253 DLT 728, where this Court held as under: “78. Under Section 81 of the IT Act, the said Act is stipulated to have overriding effect. The provision reads as under: Section 81 - Act to have overriding effect.- The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force. Provided that nothing contained in this Act shall restrict any person from exercising any right conferred under the Copyright Act 1957 or the Patents Act 1970.” 79. The overriding nature of the IT Act has application only if the provisions of the Trade Mark Act are inconsistent with the provisions of the IT Act. The Intermediary Guidelines 2011 themselves require compliance with the TM Act by the persons to host, display or upload the products or services. The provisions of Section 29, Section 101 and Section 102 of the TM Act, are being looked at in order to interpret as to what constitutes ‘conspiring, abetting, aiding or inducing’ the commission of an unlawful act, in the context of trade mark rights. The provisions of the TM Act are not in any manner inconsistent with the provisions of the IT Act. Hence Section 81 of the IT Act does not grant any immunity to intermediaries who may be in violation of the provisions of the TM Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DEVANSHU JOSHI Signing Date:31.08.2022 12:12:31 CS (COMM) 282/2020 Page 48 of 51