The main legal point established in the judgment is that the mere accessibility of a website in a particular jurisdiction does not automatically confer territorial jurisdiction, and real commercial transactions are required to establish purposeful availment of jurisdiction by the defendant.

JUDGMENT

Jayant Nath, J. - I.A. 102/2021

1. This is an application under Order 7 Rule 10 read with Order 7 Rule 11(a) and (d) CPC filed by the defendant seeking rejection of the plaint/return of the plaint to be presented before a court of competent jurisdiction.

2. The plaintiff has filed the accompanying suit seeking an order of permanent injunction to restrain the defendant, its directors, etc. from offering/providing healthcare services including pathology/diagnostic services, etc. under the name/mark DR. REDDYS as part of its domain name/website/trade name, etc. which amounts to infringement of the plaintiff"s trade name/mark DR.REDDY"S which is a registered mark in class 5 and 44. Other connected reliefs are also sought.

3. It is the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff"s mark DR.REDDY"S is registered in India in class 5 since 2001. The plaintiff has also obtained various registrations of the mark DR.REDDY"S in class 5 and 44. In August 2020, the plaintiff"s attention was invited by its representative to a website being operated under the name www.drreddyspathlabs.com. The plaintiff was shocked to learn about the illegal and unauthorised business activities of the defendant/use of an identical trade mark/trade name "DR.REDDYS" as part of domain name/website/trade name. Hence, the present suit.

4. The defendant has filed the aforesaid application stating that this court does not have territorial jurisdiction to hear the present suit. The registered offices of both the parties are located at Hyderabad. The defendant is not conducting any business in Delhi and no part of cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this court. It is also urged that Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act has no application to the facts of this case as though the corporate office of the plaintiff is situated in Delhi but a suit for infringement can be filed only at a place where the plaintiff"s registered office is located. Additionally, it is urged that Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act is relevant only for the purposes of infringement of the trade mark. It is urged that the present suit is a composite suit for passing off and unfair competition. Hence, the present application.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. I have also perused the written submissions filed by the defendant.

6. Learned counsel for the defendant has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Indian Performing Rights Society Ltd. vs. Sanjay Dalia & Anr., (2015) 10 SCC 161 to plead that a suit for infringement of trade mark can only be filed at the place where the plaintiff"s registered office is located. Reliance is also placed on Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act. Reliance is also placed on a judgment of a Division Bench of this court in the case of Banyan Tree Holding (P) Ltd. vs. A. Murali Krishna Reddy & Anr., 2010 (42) PTC 361 (Del.) to claim that merely because the defendant"s website is accessible in Delhi, is not a ground for concluding that any part of cause of action has arisen in Delhi. Hence, Section 20(c) CPC would also have no application to the present case. Hence, it is pleaded that this court does not have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present suit and appropriate directions be passed by this court.

7. I may first look as to when the court would exercise powers under Order 7 Rule 10 CPC to return the plaint on account of lack of territorial jurisdiction.

8. The settled legal position is that while considering an application under Order 7 Rule 10 CPC, only averments made in the plaint and the documents filed along with the plaint need to be seen. In this context reference may be made to the judgment of the Division Bench of this court in the case of M/s. RSPL Ltd. vs. Mukesh Sharma & Anr., (2016) 232 DLT 161 where the court held as follows:-

"11. It must be stated that it is a settled proposition of law that the objection to territorial jurisdiction in an application under Order 7 Rule 10 CPC is by way of a demur