Introduction
The dispute between Sushil Kumar T/A Da Polo & Anr. and The Polo/Lauren Company L.P. pivots on crucial questions of territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction in the realm of trademark and copyright enforcement, especially in the digital era. The matter came before the High Court of Delhi, challenging the decision of the Commercial Court (South District, Saket Court, New Delhi) to entertain a suit for permanent injunction based on alleged infringement, passing off, and copyright violation due to the use of trade marks similar to those of the respondent. The petitioners sought judicial intervention under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, raising fundamental issues about the interplay between internet-based commerce and forum conveniens in intellectual property litigation.
Factual Background
The Respondent, The Polo/Lauren Company L.P., holds registrations for multiple formative variants of the mark "POLO," including "POLO RALPH LAUREN," and other associated device marks, with registered protection over goods and services in their class. The Petitioners, Sushil Kumar T/A Da Polo and another, were accused of adopting and using the impugned trade mark "DA POLO" on identical goods, marketing these through their own website (www.dapolo.in) and e-commerce platforms such as www.indiamart.com. The Respondent contended that such acts constituted infringement, passing off, and copyright violation, seeking permanent injunction restraining those acts. The core factual assertion by the Respondent was that these infringing products were networked and made accessible to customers within the territorial jurisdiction of the South Delhi Commercial Court.
Procedural Background
The suit was filed by the Respondent before the Commercial Court seeking permanent injunction, damages, and other reliefs. The Petitioners, acting as Defendants in that suit, moved an application under Order VII Rules 10 and 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, together with Sections 35, 35A, and 151, to dismiss or return the plaint for lack of jurisdiction and inadequate valuation. The Commercial Court rejected the application, considering the objections 'by way of demurrer', leading the Petitioners to file the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Delhi.
Core Dispute
At the heart of this litigation were three intertwined issues. First, whether the Commercial Court in South Delhi had territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction in light of the Petitioners’ principal places of business being in Sonipat (Haryana) and Rohini (New Delhi), and the absence of specific evidence of commercial transactions within its jurisdiction. Second, whether mere accessibility or interactivity of the Petitioners’ website constituted purposeful availment of the jurisdiction of the Commercial Court, especially for internet-based disputes in trademark infringement and passing off actions. Third, whether the provisions of Section 134(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 enabled forum shopping, or should be harmonized with Section 20 of CPC in accordance with Supreme Court interpretations to prevent abuse of process.
Discussion on Judgments
The parties cited and relied upon an array of precedents, which the judge meticulously discussed:
St. Ives Laboratories Inc. v. Arif Perfumers & Anr. (2009) 40 PTC 104 (Delhi) was referenced by the Petitioners to suggest that mere assertions of clandestine sales do not confer jurisdiction and that such suits could be a device for harassment.
Dahiben v. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanushali (Gajra) Dead through Legal Representatives & Ors. (2020) 7 SCC 366 (Supreme Court of India) as cited by the Petitioners, underscored that a plaint which is manifestly vexatious and does not disclose a clear right to sue must be nipped at the threshold.
Coromandel Indag Products India Ltd. v. Sumitomo Chemical Company Ltd. & Anr. 2025 SCC OnLine Del 4647 (Delhi High Court) reaffirmed the principle that courts must look for meaningful pleadings rather than clever drafting creating an illusion of cause of action.
Banyan Tree Holding Limited v. M. Murali Krishna Reddy & Anr. 2009 SCC OnLine Del 3780 (Delhi High Court, Division Bench) established crucial tests for asserting jurisdiction in internet-based disputes. The judgment held that jurisdiction is not attracted by mere interactivity or accessibility of a website; the plaintiff must demonstrate that the defendant purposefully availed itself of the forum court and specifically targeted customers within the jurisdiction, resulting in injury or harm. This authority was heavily relied on by the Petitioners, with its multi-factor test reaffirmed in subsequent cases.
Impresario Entertainment & Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. v. S&D Hospitality 2018 SCC OnLine Del 6392 (Delhi High Court) interpreted Banyan Tree’s tests and held that plaintiffs must prima facie show commercial transactions targeting the forum state, supported by material evidence. Trap transactions, if relied upon, must be fair and transparently pleaded.
Karans Gurukul Classes & Ors. v. Gurukul Classes IIT Division & Ors. 2019 SCC OnLine Del 8444 (Delhi High Court) echoed the earlier judgments, holding that mere website interactivity does not suffice for jurisdiction unless targeted commercial activity is established.
Indian Performing Rights Society Ltd. v. Sanjay Dalia & Anr. (2015) 10 SCC 161 (Supreme Court) was referenced to clarify that Section 134(2) of the Trade Marks Act provides an additional forum but does not allow forum shopping; suits should be filed at a place where plaintiff carries on business and where the cause of action arises.
Ultra Home Construction Pvt. Ltd. v. Purushottam Kumar Chaubey & Ors. 2016 SCC OnLine Del 376 and 2023:DHC:9093 (Delhi High Court) analyzed forum conveniens and the meaning of "carries on business", harmonizing Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act with Section 20 of CPC, favoring the plaintiff’s convenience, yet restricting forum shopping.
World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. v. Reshma Collection & Ors. (2014) 60 PTC 452 (Del) applied similar reasoning to internet-based business models, holding that transactions executed over interactive websites where orders, payments, and deliveries occur within a forum state are akin to having a shop in that state, thus satisfying the "carrying on business" criterion.
Further supporting authorities included Corona Remedies Pvt. Ltd. v. UMAC Pharmaceuticals & Ors.:2023:DHC:5718; Diamond Modular Pvt. Ltd. v. Vikash Kumar & Anr.: 2025:DHC:3619-DB; Shree Girirajji & Co. v. Gagan Pagrani Proprietor of Plastica Industries: 2024:DHC:2230-DB; Marrico Ltd.v. Mr. Mukesh Kumar & Ors. (2018) 253 DLT 8; M/s Allied Blenders & Distillers Pvt. Ltd. v. R.K. Distillers Pvt. Ltd. (2017) 69 PTC 493 all of which contributed to contours of jurisdiction in commercial disputes, especially where business is transacted via interactive websites accessible within the forum state.
On maintainability, Black Diamond Trackparts Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. Black Diamond Motors Pvt. Ltd. (2021) 87 PTC 480 (DB), Ashok Kumar Puri & Anr. v. S. Suncon Realtors Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. (2021) 4 HCC (Del) 201, and Deep Industries Limited v. Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited (2020) 15 SCC 706 were cited to clarify the limited, cautious exercise of Article 227 jurisdiction over Commercial Court orders.
Reasoning and Analysis of the Judge
Justice Tejas Karia conducted a thorough analysis of the pleadings, rival submissions, and the array of precedents. At the outset, he clarified that petitions under Article 227, while maintainable, should only be entertained in exceptional circumstances involving patent lack of inherent jurisdiction. The threshold for interference with Commercial Court orders was set high, favoring expeditious resolution over piecemeal challenges.
The judge recognized that the Respondent had sufficiently pleaded facts demonstrating the causes of action within the territorial jurisdiction of the Commercial Court. Screenshots showed the petitioners marketing allegedly infringing products online, with accessibility to customers within South Delhi. The plaint included credible apprehensions that the petitioners' activities were likely to expand further into that market, thus justifying jurisdiction for preventive relief.
On the pivotal issue of internet-based jurisdiction, Justice Karia harmonized the reasoning from Banyan Tree Holding and World Wrestling Entertainment. He acknowledged the nuanced requirement for purposeful availment — more than mere accessibility or interactivity — insisting that the defendant must target customers within the forum state. However, upon reviewing the documents and pleadings, he concluded that the petitioners’ website, coupled with the presence on multiple e-commerce platforms, established purposeful availment, as customers in the territorial jurisdiction could place orders and receive deliveries of the impugned goods.
Additionally, referencing Indian Performing Rights Society Ltd. and Ultra Home Construction Pvt. Ltd., Justice Karia asserted that Section 134(2) of the Trade Marks Act provides an additional forum only if the plaintiff carries on business in a jurisdiction where a cause of action arises, but does not endorse forum shopping solely on the basis of branch offices or online presence at distant locations. The Respondent’s assertion of active business and sales within South Delhi, recognized by their own averments and online transactions, satisfied this requirement.
Notably, the judge held that objections as to valuation and pecuniary jurisdiction had been abandoned before the Commercial Court and required no further adjudication.
Final Decision
Justice Tejas Karia dismissed the petition under Article 227, upholding the order of the Commercial Court that refused to return or reject the plaint. He determined that the Respondent had properly invoked the jurisdiction by evidencing business activity and potential expansion of the allegedly infringing mark within South Delhi through interactive online platforms. The Commercial Court’s finding was neither perverse nor lacking inherent jurisdiction, and thus did not merit interference through supervisory jurisdiction.
Law Settled in This Case
This case settles several significant legal principles in the context of intellectual property disputes over online commerce. First, it reaffirms that territorial jurisdiction in trademark and copyright suits arising from internet commerce is not triggered merely by the accessibility of a defendant’s website in the forum state; rather, the plaintiff must show that the defendant purposefully availed itself of the forum by targeting customers and conducting actual commercial transactions, resulting in injury within the jurisdiction. Second, it confirms the cautious approach courts must take under Section 134(2) of the Trade Marks Act to balance the plaintiff’s convenience with prevention of forum shopping, requiring a real nexus between business activities and the forum. Third, it underscores the limited scope of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 in commercial suits, emphasizing prompt resolution and restricting review to cases of patent lack of inherent jurisdiction.
Case Details
Case Title: Sushil Kumar Vs The Polo/Lauren Company L.P.
Date of Order: 22 August 2025
Case Number: CM(M)-IPD 31/2025 & CM 180/2025
Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:7159
Name of Court: High Court of Delhi
Name of Judge: Hon’ble 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
Suitable titles for publication in Law Journal
-
Jurisdiction in Internet-Based Trademark Disputes: A Detailed Analysis of Sushil Kumar v. Polo Lauren Company
-
Purposeful Availment and Forum Shopping: Lessons from the Delhi High Court in Da Polo v. Polo/Lauren
-
The Evolution of Territorial Jurisdiction in E-commerce IP Litigation: Insights from Recent Judgments
-
Navigating Trademark Jurisdiction in the Digital Marketplace: Case Study of Sushil Kumar v. Polo/Lauren
-
Judicial Standards for Online IP Disputes: How Delhi High Court Shapes the Law on Forum Selection
-
Article 227 Review in Commercial IP Suits — Limits and Lessons from Sushil Kumar v. Polo/Lauren Company
-
Interactive Websites and Jurisdiction: Reconciling Banyan Tree and World Wrestling in Indian IP Law
-
Balancing Convenience and Abuse: The Law of Forum Selection in Online Trademark Litigation
