Brief Introductory Head Note Summary of Case
Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd., a well-known company with registered trademarks PEPFIZ and REVITAL, filed a suit against Artura Pharmaceuticals P. Ltd. in the Delhi High Court alleging trademark infringement and passing off due to the defendant's use of similar marks PEPFIX and NEOVITAL on nutritional supplements. The defendant challenged the court's territorial jurisdiction, claiming no business or sales in Delhi, only export operations from Chennai and Andhra Pradesh, and sought return of the plaint under Order VII Rule 10 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). The court dismissed the application, holding that the plaint's averments about the defendant's interactive websites accessible in Delhi raised sufficient part of cause of action here, to be tried as a preliminary issue later.
Factual Background
The plaintiff, having its registered office in Delhi, owns trademarks PEPFIZ and REVITAL for pharmaceutical and nutritional products. It discovered the defendant using PEPFIX and NEOVITAL on similar goods, leading to an ex-parte ad-interim injunction on 21.11.2024 restraining the defendant from using these marks or any deceptively similar variants anywhere, including through dealers, e-commerce platforms, or agents. The defendant's website (www.arturapharma.com) features a "Contact Us" section inviting users to enquire for services, downloadable product brochures mentioning the impugned marks, and a third-party site (www.pharmahopers.com) lists NEOVITAL with an enquiry form for potential buyers. The plaintiff pleaded these platforms are accessible in Delhi, causing confusion and injury to its business among local consumers.
Procedural Detail
The suit, filed as CSCOMM 103/2024 with I.A. 4574/2024 and I.A. 16842/2025, invoked Section 20 CPC for jurisdiction, asserting part of cause of action arose in Delhi due to online accessibility and potential sales. The defendant filed I.A. 17275/2025 under Order VII Rule 10 CPC to return the plaint, denying any Delhi operations, sales invoices, or interactive e-commerce features. Arguments were heard via video conference by counsels for both sides, with the court examining pleadings, documents like website screenshots and brochures, and prior interim order. No trial evidence was led; the matter was decided on demurrer basis.
Core Dispute
The main question was whether the Delhi High Court has territorial jurisdiction over this trademark suit, given the defendant's claim of no physical presence, sales, or commercial transactions in Delhi, and that its websites are merely informational, not interactive for orders. The plaintiff countered that website accessibility in Delhi, "Contact Us" invitations for services, product listings on third-party platforms, and potential consumer confusion constitute purposeful targeting and part of cause of action under Section 20 CPC. The dispute centered on applying internet jurisdiction tests—sliding scale of interactivity and effects doctrine—to determine if online activities confer jurisdiction without proven local sales.
Detailed Reasoning and Discussion by Court Including on Judgement with Complete Citation Referred and Discussed for Reasoning
The court applied the demurrer principle from Exphar SA v. Eupharma Laboratories Limited, (2004) 3 SCC 688, where the Supreme Court held that jurisdiction objections under Order VII Rule 10 CPC must assume plaint averments as true, succeeding only if no jurisdiction exists as a matter of law even on those facts. It affirmed Section 20 CPC governs trademark suits, with cause of action arising where wrong (confusion/deception) or injury occurs, as in Millennium Copthorne International Limited v. Aryans Plaza Services Private Limited, 2018 SCC OnLine Del 8268, noting codified law allows suits where part of cause accrues, especially via online confusion. For internet disputes, Banyan Tree Holding P. Limited v. A. Murali Krishna Reddy & Anr., 2009 SCC OnLine Del 3780, mandated "sliding scale test" (website passivity vs. interactivity) plus "effects test" (purposeful targeting causing forum injury), requiring prima facie proof of commercial transactions targeting forum users, not mere accessibility.
The court rejected defendant's reliance on Federal Express Corporation v. Fedex Securities Ltd. & Ors., 2018 (74) PTC 205 (Del) (DB), distinguishing it as lacking any commercial transaction examples, unlike here with pleaded "Contact Us" enquiries and brochures. It noted Ms. Kohinoor Seed Fields India Pvt. Ltd. v. Ms. Veda Seed Sciences Pvt. Ltd., 2025 SCC OnLine Del 2404, returned a plaint for no Delhi orders via IndiaMart, but observed the appeal judgment was reserved (order 31.07.2025), and facts differ with purposeful service invitations. Contrarily, RSPL Limited v. Mukesh Sharma & Anr., 2016 SCC OnLine Del 4285, supported demurrer-based jurisdiction from plaint facts. Tata Sons P. Ltd. v. Hakunamatata Tata Founders & Ors., 2022 SCC OnLine Del 2968, clarified targeting need not be aggressive; mere accessible online presence suffices if inviting transactions. Marico Limited v. Mr. Mukesh Kumar & Ors., 2018 SCC OnLine Del 10823, reinforced interactivity via enquiry forms.
Accepting plaint facts, the court found "Contact Us" (inviting "write to us for services"), downloadable brochures with impugned marks, and pharmahopers.com listing with enquiry forms indicate interactivity and targeting, creating Delhi confusion potential despite no sales invoices—issues needing trial evidence on functionality, enquiries from Delhi, and export-only claims. Jurisdiction, a mixed fact-law question, cannot be summarily rejected pre-trial; suit to proceed with jurisdiction as preliminary issue post-pleadings.
Decision
The defendant's I.A. 17275/2025 was dismissed, reserving its right to re-agitate territorial jurisdiction as a preliminary issue at trial after evidence. The suit (CSCOMM 103/2024 and I.A. 16842/2025) listed for 17.12.2025 before Joint Registrar (Judicial).
Concluding Note
This ruling balances plaintiff convenience in forum non-conveniens via online trademark threats with defendant protections against baseless jurisdiction claims, emphasizing evidence-led resolution over summary returns. It underscores evolving internet commerce challenges under CPC, prioritizing plaint averments at threshold while deferring factual probes, ensuring fair trials without premature ousters.
Case Title: Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. Vs. Artura Pharmaceuticals P. Ltd.
Order Date: 24.11.2025
Case Number: CSCOMM 103/2024
Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:1038
Name of Court: High Court of Delhi
Name of Hon'ble Judge: Mr. Justice Tejas Karia
Disclaimer: The information shared here is intended to serve the public interest by offering insights and perspectives. However, readers are advised to exercise their own discretion when interpreting and applying this information. The content herein is subjective and may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.
Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi
Suggested 5 Suitable Titles for this Legal Analytical Article:
Website Interactivity and Territorial Jurisdiction: Delhi High Court's Demurrer Approach in Sun Pharma v. Artura Pharma
From Contact Us to Courtroom: Evolving Tests for Online Trademark Jurisdiction under CPC Section 20
Demurrer, Deception, and Digital Reach: Jurisdiction Analysis in Pharmaceutical Trademark Dispute
Banyan Tree Revisited: Preliminary Issues in Internet-Based Passing Off Suits
Purposeful Availment Online: Why Delhi High Retained Jurisdiction Despite No Local Sales
======
Delhi High Court Retains Jurisdiction in Sun Pharma's Trademark Suit Against Artura Pharma Despite No Local Sales
In a significant ruling on trademark jurisdiction in the digital age, the High Court of Delhi on November 24, 2025, in Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. v. Artura Pharmaceuticals P. Ltd. (CSCOMM 103/2024), presided over by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tejas Karia, dismissed the defendant's application seeking return of the plaint for lack of territorial jurisdiction.
Sun Pharma, holding registered trademarks PEPFIZ and REVITAL for nutritional supplements, sued Artura Pharma for infringement and passing off over similar marks PEPFIX and NEOVITAL. An ex-parte interim injunction was already granted on November 21, 2024, restraining the defendant from using these marks. Artura, based in Chennai with manufacturing in Andhra Pradesh and claiming export-only operations, argued no sales, offices, or interactive e-commerce in Delhi, relying on its informational website (www.arturapharma.com) and a third-party directory listing (www.pharmahopers.com).
Applying the demurrer principle under Order VII Rule 10 CPC—assuming plaint facts as true—the court held that the website's "Contact Us" section inviting service enquiries, downloadable product brochures featuring the marks, and the third-party enquiry form constituted sufficient interactivity and purposeful targeting of Delhi consumers under Section 20 CPC. Citing Banyan Tree Holding (2009 SCC OnLine Del 3780) for sliding scale and effects tests, Exphar SA (2004) 3 SCC 688 for demurrer, and Tata Sons (2022 SCC OnLine Del 2968) for online presence sufficing jurisdiction, Justice Karia ruled these raised part of cause of action in Delhi via potential confusion, warranting trial evidence on actual transactions and effects.
The application (I.A. 17275/2025) was dismissed, with jurisdiction to be decided as a preliminary issue post-pleadings. The suit proceeds to December 17, 2025.
Disclaimer: This is for general information only and should not be construed as legal advice as it may contain human errors in perception and presentation: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor (Patent & Trademark Attorney), High Court of Delhi
======
