Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
TEJAS KARIA
Sushil Kumar T/A DA Polo – Appellant
Versus
Polo/Lauren Company L.P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
TEJAS KARIA, J.
1. The Petitioners (Defendants in the Suit) have filed the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (“Constitution of India”) being aggrieved by the order dated 04.06.2025 (“Impugned Order”) in CS(COMM) 575/2024 filed by the Respondent (“Suit”) passed by the learned District Judge (Commercial-01), South District, Saket Court, New Delhi (“Commercial Court”) rejecting the Application filed by the Petitioners (“Application”) under Order VII Rules 10 and 11 read with Sections 35, 35A and 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”).
2. Vide the Application, the Petitioners sought dismissal of the Suit / rejection of Plaint on the ground that the Suit is under-valued and the learned Commercial Court lacked pecuniary jurisdiction to decide the Suit, the learned Commercial Court lacked territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain the Suit and no cause of action arises for filing of the Suit.
3. The Impugned Order, after considering the submissions made by the Parties and the applicable case laws, has dismissed the Application by considering the objection to the jurisdiction ‘by way of demurrer’.
4. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of
The jurisdiction of the Commercial Court can be established through online businesses actively targeting customers within that jurisdiction, regardless of where the business is physically located.
Jurisdiction in internet-based disputes is established through interactivity and accessibility of the Defendant's website, creating potential consumer confusion.
The main legal point established is that the invocation of territorial jurisdiction under specific provisions of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and the CPC must be analyzed based on the facts and document....
Jurisdiction in trade mark cases arises where cause of action occurs, including digital accessibility, not solely based on physical business locations.
The court underscored that registered trademarks must be protected against confusingly similar uses, emphasizing jurisdiction based on e-commerce presence.
The court affirmed that the ASCI's order, while recommendatory, gives rise to a cause of action, and part of it arises within Tamil Nadu, thus making the suit maintainable.
Jurisdiction for trademark infringement suits requires courts to accept plaint allegations as true; future apprehension of infringement can establish justiciability.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
