Amber Nutrition Private Limited vs. Mr Manish Chandak & Anr.

Held

The Court held that the mere listing of products on online platforms, even if considered an offer for sale, advertisement, and promotion, does not, in itself, establish territorial jurisdiction. The Court found that the averment of goods being delivered in Delhi lacked supporting documentary evidence, rendering it an unsubstantiated statement. The Court reasoned that such a claim, dependent on the plaintiff's conduct, should not be the sole basis for conferring jurisdiction, especially when the defendants argued that Delhi was not the forum conveniens. Consequently, the Court found that the plaintiffs had failed to establish territorial jurisdiction for the Delhi High Court. The Court ordered that the plaints in all the discussed suits be returned to the plaintiffs under Order VII Rule 10 read with Section 151 of the CPC, to be presented before an appropriate court.

Facts

The judgment consolidated multiple commercial suits filed by various plaintiffs, including ABD Maestro Private Limited, Amber Nutrition Private Limited, Jangeer Singh, Namastu Enterprise Private Limited, Zydus Wellness Products Ltd, and Sanjay Kumar Jain, against multiple defendants. The core of these suits revolved around allegations of trademark infringement and passing off, with plaintiffs claiming that defendants were using impugned marks and offering infringing products for sale through online platforms and social media. The plaintiffs asserted that these activities, including online listings, advertisements, and alleged deliveries within Delhi, established territorial jurisdiction for the Delhi High Court. The defendants, in their defense, argued that mere online listings do not establish jurisdiction and that any alleged deliveries in Delhi were unsubstantiated or insufficient to confer jurisdiction.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Defendants' online activities, including listing, advertising, and offering for sale infringing products through e-commerce platforms and social media, which are accessible across India, establish territorial jurisdiction for the Delhi High Court, particularly when alleged deliveries have occurred within Delhi? (Question of law and fact, turning on Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, Section 62 of the Copyright Act, 1957, and Order VII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908). Petitioner's contention: The plaintiffs argued that the defendants' systematic and purposeful commercial activities targeting consumers in Delhi, including interactive online listings and alleged deliveries, created a part of the cause of action within the court's jurisdiction, thereby establishing territorial jurisdiction. Revenue/State's contention: The defendants contended that mere online listings, without supporting documentary evidence of actual sales or delivery within Delhi, do not satisfy the requirements for establishing jurisdiction, citing the principle from Banyan Tree. They argued that any alleged delivery in Delhi was unsubstantiated and insufficient to make Delhi the forum conveniens.