'Contact Us' Section and Online Listings on Websites are Prima Facie Sufficient to Establish Territorial Jurisdiction

The Plaintiff, based in Amritsar, Punjab, filed a suit for permanent injunction against the Defendants for trademark and copyright infringement related to pharmaceutical products

Defendants No. 1 and 3 filed an application under Order VII Rule 10 of the CPC (I.A. 21970/2025) seeking return of the plaint on the ground that the Delhi High Court lacks territorial jurisdiction

The Defendants argued that the Plaintiff does not carry on business in Delhi under Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act, and no cause of action arose in Delhi under Section 20 of the CPC because the Defendants lack a drug license to sell in Delhi and their website is "passive"

The Plaintiff countered that Defendant No. 1 has its registered office in Delhi and maintains an interactive website with a "Contact Us" page and product listings accessible to Delhi consumers

1. Whether the averment of a "Contact Us" page on a website and product listings on third-party e-commerce platforms is sufficient to confer territorial jurisdiction at the preliminary stage of demurrer

2. Whether the existence of a registered office of the Defendant in Delhi, coupled with online accessibility, satisfies the requirements of Section 20 of the CPC

The court applied the principle of "demurrer" under Order VII Rule 10 CPC, which mandates that jurisdictional objections must be decided solely based on the averments in the plaint and annexed documents, treating them as true [citing Exphar SA v. Eupharma Laboratories Ltd.]

Section 20 of the CPC regarding where the Defendant resides or the cause of action arises, noting that Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act provides an additional rather than exclusive forum

The "sliding scale" and "effects" tests for internet jurisdiction established in Banyan Tree Holding (P) Limited v. A. Murali Krishna Reddy

The precedent that "purposeful availment" occurs when a website targets a specific geography, even without proof of actual sale at the threshold stage [citing Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. v. Artura Pharmaceuticals P. Ltd. and Tata Sons Pvt. Ltd. v. Hakunamatata Tata Founders]

The Court reasoned that at the stage of deciding an application for return of plaint, it cannot look into the Defendants' merits-based defense, such as the lack of a drug license for Delhi

Since the Plaintiff pleaded that Defendant No. 1 has a registered office in Delhi and provided screenshots of a "Contact Us" page and product listings on third-party sites like IndiaMart and Justdial, the Court found these to be prima facie "facilitators" for soliciting business and promoting products in Delhi

Following the holding in Sun Pharmaceutical, the Judge determined that whether a website is "passive" or "interactive" is a mixed question of fact and law that requires evidence through trial

The "looming presence" of the website and the ability of Delhi customers to access it constituted a part of the cause of action sufficient to dismiss the demurrer

The Court clarified that the Defendants retain the liberty to raise the jurisdictional challenge again during the trial or at the stage of deciding the interim injunction. The suit was listed for further proceedings on August 27, 2026