Trademark | Territorial Jurisdiction Can't Be Created On Basis Of Website Which Doesn't Permit Sale Of Allegedly Infringing Product: Delhi HC

Justice Amit Bansal ruled that in the absence of proof of sale in Delhi or commercial transaction executed through the said website, it cannot assume jurisdiction on products/ parties based out of Uttar Pradesh. It observed,

“It is evident that the website of the defendant no.1 is a passive website and mere accessibility of the said website within the jurisdiction of this Court would not amount to specific targeting of the customers in Delhi.”

The Court was dealing with a Kanpur-based phenyle manufacturer, operating under the trade names 'DOCTOR BRAND PHENYLE' and 'DOCTOR BRAND GERM TROLL' since 1973.

In March-July 2015, Plaintiff came across Defendant's phenyl products, also manufactured in Kanpur, bearing the marks 'DOCTOR HAZEL'S BRAND PHENYL' and 'CHEMIST BRAND GERM TROLL'.

At the outset, the High Court observed that the Plaintiff failed to produce any bills/invoices or any other evidence to substantiate its claim that the defendants' products bearing the impugned marks were being sold in Delhi.

Defendant contended that its website is passive, which does not allow the customers to place orders.

Agreeing, the High Court held that the Plaintiff failed to produce any evidence to show that a commercial transaction was executed by the defendant through the said website.

It referred to Banyan Tree Holding v. A Murali Krishna Reddy (2009) where a Division Bench of the Court held that jurisdiction cannot be created on the basis of a passive website, which does not permit sale and purchase of products.

As regards the Plaintiff's contention that the allegedly infringing products are available for sale on IndiaMart, which is accessible in Delhi, the Court noted that the portal of IndiaMart is not a platform for sale and purchase of the products.

“Therefore, mere listing of defendants' products on the website of IndiaMart would not confer jurisdiction in this Court,” it said.

Plaintiff also contended that the cause of action arises in Delhi since the Defendant applied for trademark registration of the impugned mark 'DOCTOR HAZEL'S' in Delhi.

The Court however rejected this contention citing Dhodha House v. S.K. Maingi (2006) where the Supreme Court held that cause of action arises only when a registered trademark is in use and not when the application is filed for registration of a trademark.

“Therefore, the plaintiff cannot claim jurisdiction on the basis that its marks were registered in Delhi. A natural corollary to this would be that if a trademark registration cannot be relied upon to claim jurisdiction of this Court, then the execution of the assignment deed in Delhi would not automatically confer the jurisdiction of this Court,” it said.

As such, the Court held that it has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the matter and returned the plaint.

Appearance: Mr. Saikrishna Rajagopal, Mr. Nitin Sharma, Mr. Sohrab Mann, Ms. Deepika Pokharia and Mr. Abhinav Bhalla, Advocates for Plaintiff; Mr. Peeyoosh Kalra and Mr. Yashwant Singh Baghel, Advocates for Defendants

Case title: Vikrant Chemico Industries Pvt Ltd v. Shri Gopal Engineering And Chemical Works Pvt Ltd & Ors

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 998

Case no.: CS(COMM) 85/2018

Click here to read order