Trademark - Court where website is assessible has the territorial jurisdcition

Delhi High Court Upholds Jurisdiction in Trademark Infringement Case. Interactive Website Accessibility Within Jurisdiction Confers Legal Authority

In a significant judgment dated August 22, 2025, the Delhi High Court, presided over by Justice Tejas Karia, upheld the jurisdiction of the Commercial Court in a trademark infringement case involving Sushil Kumar T/A DA Polo and Polo/ Lauren Company L.P. The case revolved around allegations of trademark infringement and passing off by the Petitioners, who were accused of using a deceptively similar trademark to that of the Respondent.

The key issue in the case was whether the Commercial Court had the jurisdiction to entertain the suit, given that the Petitioners' website was accessible within the court's territorial limits. The court ruled that while mere accessibility and interactivity of a website do not automatically confer jurisdiction, the jurisdiction is valid when coupled with evidence of purposeful availment and targeting of customers within the jurisdiction.

The Petitioners argued that the suit was under-valued and lacked territorial jurisdiction, asserting that no cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of the Commercial Court. However, the Delhi High Court found that the Respondent had sufficiently pleaded a cause of action within the court's jurisdiction. The court noted that the Petitioners' interactive website and presence on e-commerce platforms allowed customers within the jurisdiction to access and potentially purchase products bearing the disputed trademark.

Justice Karia held that the Respondent had established a prima facie case for jurisdiction by demonstrating that the Petitioners had purposefully availed themselves of the court's jurisdiction by making their goods available to customers within the region. The court emphasized that the accessibility of the Petitioners' website, coupled with the interactive nature and evidence of targeting customers within the jurisdiction, satisfied the legal requirements for jurisdiction.

The judgment also clarified the application of Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, stating that it provides an additional forum where the plaintiff carries on business, provided that a part of the cause of action arises there. The court dismissed the Petitioners' objections regarding the valuation of the suit and the lack of pecuniary jurisdiction, noting that these issues were not pressed in the Commercial Court.

Ultimately, the Delhi High Court dismissed the Petitioners' plea under Article 227 of the Constitution, which sought to challenge the Commercial Court's order. The court found no infirmity in the Commercial Court's decision and concluded that the findings were reasoned, within jurisdiction, and based on a proper application of law to the facts.

This judgment reinforces the principle that courts can assume jurisdiction in cases of trademark infringement where there is evidence of purposeful availment and targeting of customers within the jurisdiction, even when the primary business operations are conducted elsewhere.

Bottom Line:

Territorial jurisdiction in cases involving trademark infringement and passing off - Jurisdiction of the Commercial Court upheld based on the interactive nature of the defendant's website and its accessibility within the court's territorial limits.

Statutory provision(s): Trade Marks Act, 1999 Section 134, Civil Procedure Code, 1908 Order VII Rules 10 and 11, Constitution of India, 1950 Article 227

Sushil Kumar T/A DA Polo v. Polo/ Lauren Company L.P., (Delhi) : Law Finder Doc id # 2767331