In Ravinder Singh Vs. Regoshin Healthcare Pvt Ltd & Ors, the Delhi High Court on 15 May 2026 in CS(COMM) 383/2025 dismissed the application filed by Defendants under Order VII Rule 10 CPC seeking return of the plaint on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction.
The Plaintiff, trading as M/s. Royal International from Amritsar, Punjab, filed the suit seeking permanent injunction for trademark infringement, passing off, and copyright violation against the use of deceptively similar marks “Royal”/“Regoshin” and labels in respect of dietary supplements and pharmaceutical products. Defendants contended that the Plaintiff carried on business in Amritsar, no cause of action arose in Delhi, and they had no drug licence to sell in Delhi.
Justice Jyoti Singh held that while deciding an application under Order VII Rule 10 CPC, the Court must proceed on a mere demurrer accepting all averments in the plaint as true. The Court found that the plaint contained sufficient pleadings regarding the registered office of Defendant No.1 in Delhi and the accessibility of Defendants’ website (with ‘Contact Us’ page) and third-party listings on IndiaMart and Justdial in Delhi, which prima facie showed part cause of action arising in Delhi under Section 20 CPC. The Judge observed that issues regarding the interactivity of websites and actual sales being mixed questions of fact and law, they could be adjudicated as a preliminary issue after evidence. The application was dismissed while granting liberty to Defendants to raise the jurisdiction issue at a later stage.
Disclaimer: Donot treat this as substitute for legal advise as it may contain subjective errors. Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi
#DelhiHighCourt, #TrademarkInfringement, #TerritorialJurisdiction, #Order7Rule10CPC, #PharmaceuticalTrademark, #IPLitigation, #ContactUsWebsite, #PassingOff, #JusticeJyotiSingh, #TradeMarksAct, #IPUpdate, #AdvocateAjayAmitabhSuman, #IPAdjutor
=====
Introduction
In a clear and practical ruling on territorial jurisdiction in intellectual property disputes, the Delhi High Court has reiterated that courts must examine the plaintiff’s pleadings at face value when defendants challenge jurisdiction at an early stage. The judgment highlights how a company’s registered office in Delhi and an accessible “Contact Us” webpage can establish sufficient connection for a Delhi court to hear a trademark and passing off case, even if the plaintiff operates from another state.
Factual and Procedural Background
Ravinder Singh, trading as Royal International from Amritsar, Punjab, filed a suit in the Delhi High Court seeking permanent injunction against Regoshin Healthcare Pvt Ltd and others. He alleged that the defendants were infringing his “Royal” trademarks and trade dress by selling similar marks on dietary supplements and pharmaceutical products.
Defendants No. 1 and 3 moved an application under Order VII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, requesting the plaint be returned for lack of territorial jurisdiction. They argued that the plaintiff neither resides nor carries on business in Delhi, has no drug licence for sales in Delhi, and their websites are merely passive. The matter was heard by Justice Jyoti Singh.
Dispute
The main dispute was whether the Delhi High Court had territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The defendants claimed no cause of action arose in Delhi because the plaintiff’s business is in Punjab and they themselves do not sell products in Delhi due to absence of necessary licences. The plaintiff countered that the defendants’ registered office is in Delhi, their website has a functional “Contact Us” page accessible in Delhi, and their products are listed on popular platforms like IndiaMart and Justdial, which are accessible across India including Delhi.
Reasoning and Analysis of the Judge
Justice Jyoti Singh explained that when deciding an application for return of plaint under Order VII Rule 10 CPC, the court must follow the principle of “demurrer”. This means the court accepts all averments in the plaint as true and does not look into the defendant’s defence at this preliminary stage. The judge referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in Exphar SA v. Eupharma Laboratories Ltd. (2004) 3 SCC 688, which laid down that jurisdiction objections at this stage must be tested only on the basis of facts pleaded in the plaint.
The Court noted that while Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act gives an additional forum where the plaintiff resides or works, ordinary rules under Section 20 of the CPC also apply. Here, the plaintiff had specifically pleaded that Defendant No.1 has its registered office in Delhi, maintains a website with a “Contact Us” page showing Delhi address and contact details, and lists products on third-party websites accessible in Delhi. These averments, taken as true, were held sufficient to establish that part of the cause of action arose in Delhi.
Justice Singh discussed several important judgments. She relied on World Wrestling Entertainment Inc. v. M/s Reshma Collection and Kohinoor Seed Fields India Pvt Ltd v. Veda Seed Sciences Pvt Ltd (2025 SCC OnLine Del 8727) to explain the difference between passive and interactive websites. She also referred to Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd v. Artura Pharmaceuticals and Cadila Healthcare Ltd v. Uniza Healthcare LLP, where similar “Contact Us” pages and online listings were considered enough for jurisdiction at the prima facie stage. The judge clarified that questions like whether actual sales occurred or whether the website is truly passive require full evidence at trial and cannot be decided while considering return of plaint.
The Court rejected the argument that absence of a drug licence in Delhi automatically removes jurisdiction, noting this is a defence to be examined later.
Final Decision of the Court
The Delhi High Court dismissed the application under Order VII Rule 10 CPC. The suit will proceed in Delhi. However, the defendants were given liberty to raise the territorial jurisdiction issue again at later stages, including during the hearing of the interim injunction application. Pleadings were directed to be completed and the matter listed for further proceedings.
Point of Law Settled in the Case
This judgment reinforces that in trademark and passing off suits involving online presence, a defendant’s registered office in the city combined with an accessible website having a “Contact Us” feature and product listings on third-party platforms can validly confer territorial jurisdiction on the court. Such jurisdictional challenges at the initial stage are decided only on the plaintiff’s pleadings, and disputed factual issues regarding actual sales or website interactivity are left for trial. This provides clarity and practical guidance for businesses involved in e-commerce and IP disputes.
Case Details Title: Ravinder Singh v. Regoshin Healthcare Pvt Ltd & Ors. Date of Order: 15 May 2026 Case Number: CS(COMM) 383/2025 Neutral Citation: Not Available Name of Court: High Court of Delhi Name of Hon’ble Judge: Justice Jyoti Singh
Disclaimer: 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
Suitable SEO Titles for Legal Journals: Delhi High Court Upholds Jurisdiction on Basis of Registered Office and Website Contact Page in Trademark Suit, Ravinder Singh vs Regoshin Healthcare Territorial Jurisdiction Judgment, High Court Dismisses Application for Return of Plaint in Pharma Trademark Case, Justice Jyoti Singh Ruling on Online Presence and Court Jurisdiction in IP Disputes
SEO Tags: Delhi High Court, Territorial Jurisdiction, Trademark Infringement, Order 7 Rule 10 CPC, Website Jurisdiction, Contact Us Page, Pharma Trademark Dispute, Passing Off Action, Registered Office Jurisdiction, IndiaMart Justdial Listings
AdvocateAjayAmitabhSuman, IPAdjutor
Headnote: Delhi High Court holds that in trademark infringement and passing off suits, pleadings regarding defendant’s Delhi registered office and accessible website with “Contact Us” feature are sufficient to establish territorial jurisdiction at the prima facie stage under Order VII Rule 10 CPC. Application for return of plaint dismissed with liberty to raise issue at trial.
=====
No comments:
Post a Comment