The Delhi High Court recently examined the question of territorial jurisdiction in a trademark infringement and passing-off action involving the online presence of the Defendants. The Court considered whether the plaint was liable to be returned under Order VII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”) where the Plaintiff carried on business outside Delhi, but one of the Defendants had its registered office in Delhi and the impugned products were allegedly advertised and offered through websites accessible in Delhi.

The Dispute

The Plaintiff, Ravinder Singh, instituted proceedings against Regoshin Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. and others, alleging trademark infringement and passing off in relation to dietary food supplements, pharmaceutical and medicinal products, veterinary substances and allied goods and services.

The Plaintiff sought an injunction restraining the Defendants from using the impugned marks or any other marks deceptively similar to the Plaintiff’s trademarks, including the artistic work forming part of the marks.

The Defendants challenged the territorial jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court and filed an application under Order VII Rule 10 CPC, seeking return of the plaint for presentation before the court having appropriate jurisdiction.

Defendants’ Contentions

The Defendants argued that the Plaintiff neither resided nor carried on business in Delhi. The documents relied on by the Plaintiff showed that his principal place of business was in Amritsar, Punjab.

Accordingly, the Defendants contended that the Plaintiff could not invoke the additional jurisdiction conferred by Section 134 of the Trademarks Act, 1999.

The Defendants further submitted that no part of the cause of action had arisen in Delhi. They asserted that Defendants No. 1 and 3 neither carried on business nor possessed the requisite drug licence in Delhi and that there was no evidence of any sale of the impugned products in Delhi.

According to the Defendants, a mere apprehension that the products might be sold in Delhi could not confer territorial jurisdiction.

Websites and Online Platforms

The Defendants also disputed the Plaintiff’s reliance on their websites and third-party platforms such as IndiaMART and Justdial.

It was argued that the websites were essentially passive and informational and did not enable consumers to directly purchase the pharmaceutical products.

The Defendants also relied on the absence of a Delhi drug licence to contend that no lawful pharmaceutical transaction could have taken place in Delhi.

Finally, the Defendants disputed the relevance of Defendant No. 1’s Delhi registered office, contending that trademark and passing-off jurisdiction depends upon use of the impugned mark and the existence of commercial activity, rather than merely upon the registered address of a company.

Plaintiff’s Contentions

The Plaintiff submitted that the application under Order VII Rule 10 CPC was misconceived and that the Court was required to examine the plaint on a demurrer.

At this stage, the Court must proceed on the assumption that the material averments in the plaint are true. The Defendants’ defence could not be tested or adjudicated upon while considering whether the plaint should be returned.

The Plaintiff contended that the plaint contained specific averments establishing a territorial connection with Delhi.

These included the following:

1. Defendant No. 1 had its registered office in Delhi;
2. Defendant No. 1 operated a website containing product information and a “Contact Us” page displaying its Delhi office and contact details;
3. Defendant No. 2’s webpages offered the impugned products for sale;
4. the Defendants’ products were advertised and promoted through IndiaMART, Justdial and other online platforms; and
5. these platforms were accessible to potential consumers, dealers and retailers in Delhi.

The Plaintiff therefore argued that at least a part of the cause of action arose within Delhi.

The Plaintiff further alleged collusion between the Defendants in the manufacture, sale and marketing of the impugned pharmaceutical products.

Section 134 of the Trademarks Act: An Additional Forum

The Court found prima facie merit in the Defendants’ objection under Section 134.

Since the Plaintiff carried on business in Amritsar rather than Delhi, the Plaintiff could not rely upon his own place of business to invoke the additional jurisdiction contemplated under Section 134.

However, the Court clarified that this did not end the jurisdictional enquiry.

Section 134 provides an additional forum to a registered trademark proprietor. It does not take away the ordinary jurisdiction available under Section 20 CPC.

Therefore, notwithstanding the inability to invoke Section 134 on the basis of the Plaintiff’s place of business, the suit could still be maintained if the requirements of Section 20(b) or Section 20(c) CPC were satisfied.

Order VII Rule 10: The Test of Demurrer

The Court reiterated the limited scope of an application under Order VII Rule 10 CPC.

The Court is required to examine the plaint as a whole and determine whether, on the basis of the averments made therein, the court lacks territorial jurisdiction.

Consequently, where the plaint contains specific averments which, if proved, would establish territorial jurisdiction, the plaint cannot ordinarily be returned merely because the Defendants dispute those allegations.

Delhi Registered Office and Online Commercial Presence

A significant factor considered by the Court was the presence of Defendant No. 1’s registered office in Delhi.

The plaint specifically pleaded that Defendant No. 1 had its registered office in Delhi and maintained a website containing product listings and a “Contact Us” page displaying its Delhi business details.

The Plaintiff also relied upon product listings on IndiaMART, Justdial and other platforms.
The Court held that these averments could not be ignored at the demurrer stage. Taken at face value, they disclosed a potential connection between the Defendants’ commercial activities and Delhi.

The Court was therefore not persuaded to return the plaint merely because the Defendants disputed whether their websites actually resulted in sales within Delhi.

Mere Website Accessibility vs. Commercial Activity

The decision also highlights an important distinction in determining jurisdiction in online disputes.

Mere accessibility of a website may not, by itself, be sufficient to establish territorial jurisdiction. However, the Court considered the Plaintiff’s pleadings to go beyond mere accessibility.

The plaint referred to:

1. product listings;
2. advertising and promotion of the impugned products;
3. third-party commercial platforms;
4. the Defendants’ business contact details;
5. Defendant No. 1’s Delhi registered office; and
6. an alleged commercial interface with prospective customers.

The Court therefore held that questions concerning the nature and functionality of the websites, their degree of interactivity, whether they solicited customers in Delhi, and whether actual transactions took place were matters requiring evidence.

These issues could not be conclusively determined at the stage of an application under Order VII Rule 10 CPC.

Absence of Drug Licence: A Matter for Trial

The Court also declined to treat the absence of a Delhi drug licence as determinative at the threshold.

The Defendants’ argument was essentially that, without the requisite licence, they could not lawfully sell pharmaceutical products in Delhi and therefore no cause of action could arise there.

However, this contention was treated as part of the Defendants’ substantive defence.

The Plaintiff had specifically pleaded that the Defendants were advertising and offering the impugned products through various online platforms. Whether the Defendants were legally authorised to sell those products, whether actual transactions took place and whether the online presence amounted to purposeful commercial activity were questions that could be examined upon evidence.
The absence of invoices or purchase orders evidencing actual sales in Delhi was therefore insufficient, at the preliminary stage, to defeat the jurisdiction pleaded in the plaint.

Court’s Finding

The Court ultimately held that the plaint contained sufficient averments to establish territorial jurisdiction at the preliminary stage.

Although Section 134 of the Trademarks Act could not independently be invoked on the basis of the Plaintiff’s place of business, jurisdiction could nevertheless be considered under Section 20 CPC.

The specific pleadings concerning Defendant No. 1’s Delhi registered office, its website, product listings, “Contact Us” page and the alleged availability of the impugned products through online platforms such as IndiaMART and Justdial were sufficient to raise a prima facie territorial nexus with Delhi.

The Defendants’ objections concerning the actual nature of the websites, the absence of a drug licence and the absence of evidence of actual sales involved disputed questions of fact.

Such questions could not be conclusively determined while considering an application under Order VII Rule 10 CPC.

Accordingly, the Court declined to return the plaint.

Key Takeaway

The decision reiterates that if the plaint contains specific averments which, if accepted as true, establish that the Defendant carries on business within the jurisdiction or that part of the cause of action arose there, the plaint should not be returned at the threshold.

In online trademark disputes, mere website accessibility may not confer jurisdiction, but product listings, online advertising, customer solicitation, commercial interfaces and a physical business presence may collectively establish a prima facie territorial nexus. Whether such activities resulted in actual sales or targeted consumers is a matter for evidence and trial.