Rukhmani Keshwani Vs Raju Agarbatti Works
**Date of Judgment:** 01.07.2026
**Case No.:** FAO (COMM) 99/2024
**Neutral Citation:** 2026:DHC:4532-DB
**Court:** High Court of Delhi
**Hon'ble Judge:** Justice Om Prakash Shukla (for the Division Bench)
The court considered a dispute concerning territorial jurisdiction in a trademark and copyright infringement suit involving agarbatti products. The case arose from allegations that the defendants infringed the plaintiff's "RADHEY KRISHNA" mark and trade dress by using similar marks like "Lucky Radha Krishna" and "Harsh Radha Krishna." The principal question before the Court was whether the Delhi courts had territorial jurisdiction when both parties operated from Rajasthan but engaged in online commercial activities accessible in Delhi.
After examining the material on record and the submissions of the parties, Justice Om Prakash Shukla observed that the trial court erred in applying a restrictive view of jurisdiction by over-relying on the place of business and ignoring online evidence. The Court held that interactive e-commerce platforms and purposeful commercial targeting through websites like IndiaMart and Instamojo create a sufficient territorial nexus under Section 20(c) CPC, Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act, and Section 62 of the Copyright Act, emphasizing that digital commerce requires evolving jurisdictional principles beyond traditional physical boundaries.
Accordingly, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the return of plaint, restored the suit for adjudication on merits, and directed the parties to appear before the trial court.
[Disclaimer: Readers are advised not treat this as a substitute for legal advise as it is based on limited information and is intended solely for general informational purposes.]
### Introduction
In the digital age, where businesses operate across borders through online platforms, determining the right court for intellectual property disputes has become increasingly complex. This Delhi High Court Division Bench decision in a trademark and copyright battle over agarbatti brands highlights how courts are adapting traditional jurisdiction rules to modern e-commerce realities. The ruling is significant for IP owners, small businesses, and legal practitioners as it clarifies that online commercial activities can establish territorial jurisdiction in Delhi courts, promoting access to justice while discouraging forum shopping.
### Factual and Procedural Background
The plaintiff, operating Vishwas Agarbatti Store, claimed prior use since 1995 of the "RADHEY KRISHNA" trademark and trade dress for agarbattis. She filed a suit under the Trade Marks Act and Copyright Act alleging that the defendants from Ajmer, Rajasthan, were selling deceptively similar products under names like "Lucky Radha Krishna." The plaintiff sought injunctions and other reliefs. An ex parte interim injunction was granted in January 2022. The defendants challenged territorial jurisdiction, arguing both parties operated from Rajasthan with no cause of action in Delhi. The trial court initially rejected the plaint but the High Court restored the suit in 2023, directing evidence on jurisdiction. After trial, the district judge returned the plaint in March 2024, finding no territorial jurisdiction in Delhi and vacating interim orders. The plaintiff appealed.
### Dispute Before the Court
The main question was whether the Shahdara District Court in Delhi had territorial jurisdiction over the IP infringement suit. The plaintiff argued that defendants' IndiaMart listings and her own online sales through Instamojo created a cause of action in Delhi, supported by Sections 134 of the Trade Marks Act and 62 of the Copyright Act. The defendants contended that both parties were based in Rajasthan, no actual sales occurred in Delhi, and the suit amounted to forum shopping. They relied on the Supreme Court's IPRS judgment to argue that jurisdiction should lie where the substantial business and cause of action existed.
### Reasoning and Analysis of the Court
The Division Bench examined Section 20(c) of the CPC, which allows suits where cause of action arises in part, alongside special provisions in Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act and Section 62 of the Copyright Act that provide additional forums for IP owners. The Court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in *Indian Performing Rights Society Ltd. v. Sanjay Dalia* (2015), clarifying it prevents abuse through distant subordinate offices but does not bar jurisdiction where independent cause of action exists via online activities. Key precedents included *Banyan Tree Holding v. A. Murali Krishna Reddy*, *World Wrestling Entertainment v. Reshma Collection* (2014), *Kohinoor Seed Fields India Pvt. Ltd. v. Veda Seed Sciences Pvt. Ltd.* (2025), and *Raju Kumar v. Vinod Sah* (2026, affirmed by Supreme Court).
The Court adopted a purposive approach suited to digital commerce, holding that interactive websites enabling commercial transactions constitute purposeful availment. Evidence of defendants' IndiaMart listings with GST details and plaintiff's deliveries in Delhi established a real nexus. Mere accessibility was not enough, but purposeful targeting through e-commerce satisfied the test. The trial court's restrictive view ignored proven facts and evolving jurisprudence on online infringement.
### Final Decision of the Court
The Division Bench allowed the appeal. It set aside the trial court's order returning the plaint, restored the suit to its original number for adjudication on merits, directed parties to appear before the district judge, and left further proceedings to the trial court.
### Point of Law Settled
The judgment reaffirms and expands principles of territorial jurisdiction in IP disputes involving e-commerce. It clarifies that interactive online platforms and purposeful commercial targeting can create a cause of action under Section 20(c) CPC, read with special IP provisions, even if parties are based elsewhere. This will benefit IP holders by enabling suits in forums where infringement reaches consumers online, while maintaining safeguards against forum shopping. It aligns Indian law with global digital commerce realities.
**Case Details:**
**Title of the Case:** Rukhmani Keshwani vs Raju Agarbatti Works & Anr.
**Date of Judgment/Order:** 01.07.2026
**Case Number:** FAO (COMM) 99/2024
**Neutral Citation:** 2026:DHC:4532-DB
**Name of Court:** High Court of Delhi
**Name of Hon'ble Judge:** Justice Om Prakash Shukla (Division Bench)
**Written By:** Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi
**Disclaimer:** Images used herein do not reflect actual images used in Judgement and that the same are for illustrative purpose only. Readers are advised not to treat this as substitute for legal advice as it may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.
**Suggested SEO Titles:**
1. Delhi High Court Upholds Jurisdiction in Online Trademark Infringement Case
2. E-Commerce and Territorial Jurisdiction: Key Delhi HC Ruling on Agarbatti Brands
3. RADHEY KRISHNA Trademark Dispute: Delhi HC Restores Suit on Online Nexus
4. Purposeful Availment in Digital IP Cases: Delhi Division Bench Clarifies Law
5. Section 134 Trade Marks Act Jurisdiction in Online Sales: 2026 Judgment
6. Delhi High Court on Cause of Action from IndiaMart Listings
7. Adapting Jurisdiction Rules to E-Commerce: Delhi HC IP Verdict
8. Forum Shopping vs Online Targeting: Analysis of Rukhmani Keshwani Case
9. Copyright and Trademark Suits in Digital Era: Delhi High Court Guidelines
10. Territorial Jurisdiction for IP Infringement via Websites: Latest Delhi HC View
**Suggested SEO Tags:** territorial jurisdiction trademark infringement, delhi high court ip appeal, radhey krishna agarbatti, online e commerce jurisdiction, section 134 trade marks act, section 62 copyright act, india mart listings jurisdiction, iprs judgment application, AdvocateAjayAmitabhSuman, IPAdjutor
**Headnote of the Judgment:** In FAO(COMM) 99/2024 before the Delhi High Court, Rukhmani Keshwani appealed return of her plaint in a trademark/copyright suit against Raju Agarbatti Works for "RADHEY KRISHNA" infringement. The Division Bench allowed the appeal, holding Delhi courts have territorial jurisdiction due to defendants' interactive IndiaMart listings and plaintiff's online commercial activities in Delhi, establishing cause of action under relevant IP provisions and CPC. Suit restored for merits adjudication. (62 words)
**Prompt for Info-graphic 14:9 aspect ratio image:** Create a suitable 3d hyper realistic multicolour 8K Quality Legal info-graphic containing necessary information in graph,chart, tables , Circles , Dashboard etc. The texts be large , bold and 3D Stylish multicolour containing name of case,date of order,case no, name of court, decision and one most important principle of law laid down. Also use generic images for the product or service involved in the matter. Do not use name of any court, lawyer , tricolor, Ashoka Emblem and any other government insignia. At end of this prompt add this sentence also" Use attached image as Image of lawyer in lawyers dress at left bottom corner which should cover 20 % of entire image area.
