The petitioners/defendants challenged the Trial Court's order dated 17.09.2025 dismissing their application under Order VII Rule 11(a) & (d) CPC for rejection of the plaint in a trademark infringement suit, contending that the plaint disclosed no cause of action and that Delhi courts lacked territorial jurisdiction, as the defendants were based in Solapur (Maharashtra), manufactured fuses there, never supplied goods beyond Maharashtra, and the plaintiff's bald averments in para 46 about availability/sale in Delhi markets (Naraina, R.K. Puram, Sarojini Nagar) and through Just Dial lacked supporting documents or proof of actual purchase/sale.
The plaintiff/plaintiff opposed, relying on averments in paras 46-48 of the plaint about advertising, soliciting, supplying, and offering for sale via Just Dial e-commerce platform, plus filed Just Dial printouts, arguing this conferred jurisdiction.
The High Court held that at the Order VII Rule 11 stage only plaint averments are to be considered without mini-trial or requiring proof/documents, and the averments in paras 46-48 sufficiently alleged facts conferring territorial jurisdiction on Delhi courts, particularly in view of evolved law on e-commerce/online offers for sale.
The defendants' contentions on absence of actual sale or documents were matters for trial, not rejection at threshold, hence the petition under Article 227 was dismissed without costs, with liberty to raise similar objections in written statement for Trial Court consideration.
Law settled:
In trademark infringement/passing off cases involving e-commerce platforms, mere accessibility and looming presence of a website/offer for sale in a geography, even without aggressive targeting or actual completed sale, is sufficient to characterize it as targeting the forum and to confer territorial jurisdiction on courts where such commercial transaction could be concluded, as the tort stands committed where infringing goods are capable of being sold/purchased.
Once allegedly infringing goods are listed/available for sale on e-commerce platforms (accessible in the forum), the situs of the tort of infringement includes every place where a commercial transaction could be concluded, enabling suit filing in courts having jurisdiction over such place, irrespective of whether listing was at defendant's instance or by third party.
Case Title: Yatishkumar Baburao Gaikwad Vs. Sachin Sariya:19.01.2026 : CM(M)-IPD 40/2025 : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tushar Rao Gedela
[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