Court dismisses jurisdictional objection in Astral Ltd. v. Astral Marketing Syndicate, allowing trademark infringement suit to proceed in Delhi.
In a notable judgment delivered on June 15, 2026, the Delhi High Court dismissed a jurisdictional objection raised by the defendants in a trademark infringement case concerning the online listing of alleged infringing products. The case, titled Astral Ltd. v. M/S Astral Marketing Syndicate and Anr., was presided over by Justice Tejas Karia. The plaintiff, Astral Ltd., contended that the defendants were infringing upon its trademark by listing products on the e-commerce platform Justdial, accessible to customers in Delhi.
The defendants, represented by Mr. Anchit Bhandari and Mr. Ashok Mittal, argued that the Delhi Court lacked territorial jurisdiction as both parties' principal places of business were in Ahmedabad, and no actual sales of the infringing products had occurred in Delhi. They sought the rejection of the suit under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, asserting that mere online presence does not constitute a cause of action in Delhi.
However, the plaintiff's counsel, including Mr. Sachin Gupta, argued that the online accessibility of the products in Delhi and the presence of a subordinate office there were sufficient to establish jurisdiction. They emphasized that the interactive nature of the Justdial listing, which allows customers to contact the defendants and place orders, creates a potential for confusion and misled consumers within the territory.
Justice Karia, referencing past judgments such as Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. v. Artura Pharmaceuticals (P) Ltd. and Tata Sons P. Ltd. v. Hakunamatata Tata Founders and Ors., observed that the functionality of the Justdial listing could facilitate commercial transactions, thus giving rise to a cause of action in Delhi. The court held that both the principal and subordinate office locations of the plaintiff could confer jurisdiction, as per the Trade Marks Act, 1999, and the Civil Procedure Code.
While dismissing the defendant's application, the court maintained that jurisdictional issues could be revisited at trial, ensuring a comprehensive examination of the facts. The decision underscores the evolving interpretation of territorial jurisdiction in the digital age, where e-commerce platforms play a crucial role in commercial activities across borders.
The case is scheduled for further proceedings on August 19, 2026.
Bottom line:-
Territorial jurisdiction in trademark infringement cases involving e-commerce platforms like Justdial - Mere online listing of alleged infringing products accessible to consumers in a specific jurisdiction can prima facie give rise to part of the cause of action and confer jurisdiction upon the Court.
Statutory provision(s):
Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908; Section 20 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908; Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
Astral Ltd. v. M/S Astral Marketing Syndicate, (Delhi) : Law Finder Doc id # 2924453
