Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. filed a suit for trademark infringement, passing off, and related reliefs against Artura Pharmaceuticals P. Ltd. alleging that the defendant's marks PEPFIX and NEOVITAL were deceptively similar to its registered marks PEPFIZ and REVITAL; an ex-parte interim injunction was granted on 21.11.2024 restraining the defendant from dealing in goods under the impugned marks.
The defendant filed an application under Order VII Rule 10 CPC seeking return of the plaint for lack of territorial jurisdiction, contending it had no business in Delhi, manufactured only for export, and its website was not interactive enough to confer jurisdiction.
The Delhi High Court dismissed the application on 24.11.2025 holding that at the demurrer stage, plaint averments must be taken as true, and the plaintiff's pleadings about the defendant's website being accessible in Delhi with a "Contact Us" page inviting services, downloadable product brochures mentioning impugned marks, and listing on a third-party aggregator platform with an enquiry form raised mixed questions of fact and law regarding interactivity and purposeful availment under the Banyan Tree test, which could not be resolved without evidence at trial; the court directed that territorial jurisdiction be decided as a preliminary issue after pleadings and evidence.
In trademark infringement suits involving internet-based disputes, territorial jurisdiction under Section 20 CPC is determined at the demurrer stage by assuming plaint averments as true, and objections succeed only if the court lacks jurisdiction as a matter of law even on those facts (Para 25, relying on Exphar SA v. Eupharma Laboratories Limited, (2004) 3 SCC 688).
Accessibility of a defendant's website in the forum state, coupled with features like a "Contact Us" page inviting services and downloadable product information, may prima facie constitute purposeful availment conferring jurisdiction, subject to evidence at trial on interactivity under the sliding scale and effects tests (Para 27-29, relying on Banyan Tree Holding (P) Limited v. A. Murali Krishna Reddy & Anr., 2009 SCC OnLine Del 3780).
Third-party aggregator listings promoting products with enquiry forms can contribute to cause of action arising in the forum state if averred to facilitate trade opportunities, and such factual disputes cannot be summarily resolved under Order VII Rule 10 CPC without trial (Para 31).
In passing off and infringement actions, cause of action arises where confusion or deception occurs or injury is caused to the plaintiff, and online accessibility creating potential for such harm in the forum state suffices to invoke jurisdiction pending trial determination (Para 26, relying on Millennium & Copthorne International Limited v. Aryans Plaza Services Private Limited, 2018 SCC OnLine Del 8260).
Case Title: Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. Vs. Artura Pharmaceuticals P. Ltd.:24 November 2025:CS(COMM) 1038/2024:2025:DHC:10348:Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tejas Karia
[Readers are advised not to treat this as substitute for legal advise as it may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation]
[Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi]
No comments:
Post a Comment