Delhi High Court: 'Contact Us' Page Sufficient to Establish Prima Facie Jurisdiction in Trademark Suit

New Delhi: The Delhi High Court has ruled that a defendant's website featuring a "Contact Us" page and downloadable product brochures is sufficient to establish a prima facie case for territorial jurisdiction, preventing the summary dismissal of a trademark infringement suit. Justice Tejas Karia held that whether such online presence leads to commercial transactions is a "mixed question of law and fact" that must be decided during a trial, not at a preliminary stage.

The court dismissed an application by Artura Pharmaceuticals P. Ltd. seeking the return of a trademark infringement plaint filed by Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd., reinforcing that in the digital age, even passive invitations to transact can bring a company within a court's jurisdictional reach.

---

Case Background

The dispute began when Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. (Plaintiff) filed a suit against Artura Pharmaceuticals P. Ltd. (Defendant) for infringing its registered trademarks ‘PEPFIZ’ and ‘REVITAL’. Sun Pharma alleged that Artura's marks, ‘PEPFIX’ and ‘NEOVITAL’, were deceptively similar and sought a permanent injunction.

On November 21, 2024, the High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favour of Sun Pharma. In response, Artura Pharmaceuticals filed an application under Order VII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, challenging the Delhi High Court's territorial jurisdiction to hear the case.

---

Arguments on Jurisdiction

Defendant's Position: No Business in Delhi

Artura Pharmaceuticals argued that the Delhi court had no authority to try the suit because: * Its registered office is in Chennai and its manufacturing facility is in Andhra Pradesh. * The products under the allegedly infringing marks are manufactured solely for export, with no sales conducted within India. * Its website ( arturapharma.com ) is not interactive; the "Contact Us" section is for general or career-related inquiries and does not facilitate commercial transactions or have a payment gateway. * A listing on a third-party website ( pharmahopers.com ) was merely a directory entry and not an e-commerce portal for sales.

Citing the landmark case of Banyan Tree Holding (P) Ltd. v. A. Murali Krishna Reddy , the defendant contended that for a court to assume jurisdiction based on a website, the plaintiff must show that the website specifically targeted viewers in the forum state for commercial transactions, resulting in an injury.

Plaintiff's Counter: Online Presence Creates Jurisdiction

Sun Pharma countered that the court possessed the necessary jurisdiction, arguing:

* Jurisdictional objections must be decided on a demurrer, meaning the court must assume all allegations in the plaint are true at this stage.

* The defendant's website is accessible to consumers in Delhi, and its "Contact Us" page, which invites users to "write to us and we would be more than glad to get in touch with you and render our services," amounts to "purposeful availment" of the jurisdiction.

* The availability of downloadable product brochures featuring the impugned marks and listings on third-party aggregator sites accessible in Delhi constitutes a part of the cause of action arising within the city.

---

Court's Rationale: A Triable Issue of Fact and Law

Justice Tejas Karia, in his analysis, sided with the plaintiff's contention that the matter could not be dismissed at the threshold. The court's reasoning was anchored in several key principles:

• The Demurrer Principle: The court affirmed the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in Exphar SA v. Eupharma Laboratories Limited , stating that at a preliminary stage, the facts pleaded by the plaintiff must be accepted as true. The defendant's claims that it only exports or that its website is non-commercial are matters of evidence to be proven at trial.

• Interactivity is a Matter for Trial: The court found that the defendant's online activities went beyond a purely passive website. The judgment noted, "The accessibility of the products containing the Impugned Marks on the Impugned Website creates the likelihood of confusion and deception among the consumers within the jurisdiction of this Court, who can freely access the Impugned Website and contact the Defendant through “Contact Us” page for availing the services."

• Mixed Question of Law and Fact: The court concluded that determining the true nature of the defendant's website and whether it resulted in commercial activity in Delhi is a "mixed question of law and fact." The judgment stated: > "The question whether through the 'Contract Us' page on the Impugned Website, the Defendant has actually entered into commercial transactions... would require leading of evidence by both the Parties and will have to be established at the stage of trial in this Suit."

• Purposeful Availment: The court found that the combination of the "Contact Us" invitation and the availability of product brochures was sufficient to prima facie establish that the defendant was purposefully availing itself of the forum.

---

The Final Order

The High Court dismissed Artura Pharmaceuticals' application to return the plaint. However, it preserved the defendant's right to contest the jurisdiction during the trial. The court directed that the issue of territorial jurisdiction be framed as a preliminary issue to be decided after both parties have had the opportunity to present evidence.

The case will now proceed before the Joint Registrar for further proceedings, setting the stage for a full trial to determine both the merits of the trademark claim and the contested jurisdictional issue.