Interactive Third-Party Web Listings and Local Subordinate Offices Confer Territorial Jurisdiction in Trademark Infringement Suits

The Plaintiff, Astral Ltd., filed a suit for trademark infringement and passing off regarding the mark 'ASTRAL'. Defendant No. 1 filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC seeking rejection of the plaint, contending that the Delhi High Court lacks territorial jurisdiction.

The Defendant argued that both parties have their principal places of business in Ahmedabad, and the Defendant carries on business exclusively in Gujarat.

The Plaintiff asserted jurisdiction on the grounds that the Defendant uses an interactive e-commerce platform (Justdial) to target customers in Delhi.

The Plaintiff maintains a subordinate office in Delhi.

Section 20 of the CPC, which provides for jurisdiction where the cause of action arises or defendants reside.

Section 134(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, which allows a plaintiff to sue where they carry on business.

The court relied on the "sliding scale" and "effects" tests from Banyan Tree Holding (P) Ltd. v. A. Murali Krishna Reddy to determine internet-based jurisdiction.

The court followed Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. v. Artura Pharmaceuticals (P) Ltd. regarding interactive "Contact Us" pages and Astral Ltd. v. Ajay Enterprises, which held that if a cause of action arises where a subordinate office is located, that court has jurisdiction alongside the court of the principal office.

The court analyzed the interactivity of the Defendant’s Justdial listing, noting it allowed users to download catalogues, submit inquiries, and initiate chats.

Applying the Sun Pharmaceutical and Ravinder Singh precedents, the court reasoned that such listings act as "facilitators" for trade and promote products to potential customers in Delhi, thereby constituting a part of the cause of action arising within the court's jurisdiction.

On the demurrer principle, the court accepted the Plaintiff’s averments as true for the purpose of the application.

The court further observed that since the Plaintiff maintains a subordinate office in Delhi and the alleged "targeting" occurred there, the requirements of both Section 20 CPC and Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act were prima facie met.

The court dismissed the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, clarifying that the lack of proof of an actual commercial transaction was not a bar to jurisdiction at the preliminary stage and preserving the Defendant’s right to challenge jurisdiction during the trial.