Jangeer Singh Trading As Jangeer Singh Kabulshah Agriculture Works vs. Yogesh Jangid Trading As Jangid Agro Engineering & Anr.

Held

The Court held that the averments made in the plaints regarding online advertisements, offers for sale, and alleged deliveries of infringing goods were insufficient to establish territorial jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court. The Court found that mere listing on a website, without more, does not confer jurisdiction, referencing the principles laid down in Banyan Tree. It noted the absence of supporting documents for the claim of delivery of goods in Delhi, rendering the averment unsubstantiated. The Court further reasoned that even if a fraction of a cause of action accrued within its jurisdiction, it should not automatically make the Delhi High Court the forum conveniens, especially when such a claim is dependent on the plaintiff's conduct. Consequently, all the discussed plaints were ordered to be returned to the plaintiffs under Order VII Rule 10 read with Section 151 of the CPC, to be presented before an appropriate court. The ratio decidendi is that establishing territorial jurisdiction based on online activities requires more than mere accessibility of listings; it necessitates demonstrable purposeful targeting of consumers within the jurisdiction and concrete evidence of commercial activity or impact, not just unsubstantiated claims of delivery.

Facts

This judgment consolidates multiple commercial suits filed before the Delhi High Court. The plaintiffs, including companies like ABD Maestro Private Limited, Amber Nutrition Private Limited, and Zydus Wellness Products Ltd., alleged that the defendants were infringing their trademarks by using similar marks for Ayurvedic medicinal preparations and other goods. The plaintiffs sought to establish territorial jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court based on online advertisements, offers for sale, and alleged deliveries of infringing products within Delhi. The defendants, in some cases, contested the jurisdiction. The court examined the averments made in the plaints regarding the cause of action arising within its jurisdiction, particularly concerning online activities and alleged physical delivery of goods.

Key Issues

1. Whether the averments in the plaints, particularly regarding online advertisements, offers for sale, and alleged deliveries of infringing goods, are sufficient to establish territorial jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court under Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, and Section 62 of the Copyright Act, 1957, and Order VII Rule 10 of the CPC? Petitioner's Argument: The plaintiffs argued that the defendants' systematic and purposeful commercial activities directed towards consumers in Delhi, including interactive online listings, advertisements, and offers for sale accessible within Delhi, coupled with alleged deliveries of infringing products to Delhi, establish a part of the cause of action within the court's jurisdiction. They relied on the principle that online activities targeting consumers in a jurisdiction can confer territorial jurisdiction. Revenue/State's Argument: The judgment does not record specific arguments from a revenue or state authority as these are civil suits between private parties. However, the court's analysis implies a challenge to the plaintiffs' claims regarding jurisdiction. The court noted that mere listing on a website does not establish jurisdiction if it falls foul of established precedents like Banyan Tree. It also highlighted the lack of supporting documents for the averment of delivery in Delhi and questioned whether such a fraction of a cause of action, if any, should make Delhi the forum conveniens.