Court Has Jurisdiction In Trademark Suits If Goods Marketed Online Can Be Accessed In Their Jurisdiction: Delhi High Court

Justice Mini Pushkarna observed, “Thus, when the website marketing the goods of the defendants is accessible from Delhi, though the said website may have stopped its operation subsequently, and products may not have been ultimately delivered in Delhi, the very fact that the said website could be accessed with the products of the defendants shown online, at the time of filing of the suit, this Court would have territorial jurisdiction. The same would constitute use in relation to goods, as the goods of the defendants were promoted and advertised through the third-party website, within the jurisdiction of this Court, at the time of filing of the suit.”

The applicant/defendant no. 1 sought rejection of the plaint in relation to a trademark infringement suit on the ground that the High Court had no territorial jurisdiction in the case. The suit was filed by Johnson & Johnson Pte. Ltd. (plaintiff) alleging trademark infringement and passing off of its 'ORSL' electrolyte drinks.

The applicant contended that the cause of action did not arise in Delhi. The applicant stated that his business is restricted to Andhra Pradesh and few parts of Odisha, Tamil Nadu and Telangana.

However, the Court did not accept the applicant's contention that the cause of action did not arise in Delhi.

The Court took note of the plaintiff's averments that the defendants sold the impugned products on a third party websites including IndiaMart, which allows the customers to place orders from all over the country including Delhi. It noted that the plaintiff was able to successfully placed an order for the impugned products to Delhi.

“The defendants have raised a plea that their products are not sold in Delhi. However, when the plaintiff has categorically averred, and shown that it has been able to successfully place order for the products of the defendants, subject matter of the suit, from within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, even though the products may not have been delivered to the plaintiff, this Court would have territorial jurisdiction.”

The Court observed that the jurisdiction in trademark infringement cases could be invoked if there is 'use' of goods for advertising, promotion, publicity, etc. Noting that an element of the use of a mark is material in cases of infringement, the Court stated that offering the goods for sale or advertising the goods for sale would be construed as the use of the goods.

The Court thus held that it had jurisdiction to try the matter and dismissed the application for rejection of the plaint.

Title: JOHNSON & JOHNSON PTE. LTD v. MR. ABBIREDDI SATISH KUMAR & ORS

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 145