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.

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 Application, the Petitioners have filed the present Petition challenging the Impugned Order.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

5. The Respondent (Plaintiff in the Suit) filed the Suit before the learned Commercial Court seeking Permanent Injunction for restraining the Petitioners from infringing, passing off and infringement of copyright by the Petitioners through adoption of the Impugned Trade Mark / Label DA POLO, , for identical class of goods and services. The Respondent is the registered proprietor of the Trade Mark / Label POLO, POLO, POLO RALPH LAUREN, POLO BY RALPH LAUREN, RALPH LAUREN, POLO DENIM, POLO SPORT, , and other formative variants inclusive of the POLO PLAYER device and other formative Trade Mark / Label. It was the Respondent’s case that the Petitioners are advertising, soliciting, selling, intending to sell and networking its goods bearing the Impugned Trade Mark / Label through the website namely https://www.dapolo.in and also through e-commerce website like www.indiamart.com. Hence, the Respondent sought restraint order against the Petitioners from using, selling, soliciting, marketing etc. or by any other mode dealing in the course of trade in physical or online market place or through website, the impugned domain name or any other trade mark / label identical with or deceptively similar to the Respondent’s Trade Mark and in any manner for infringement of the Respondent’s registered mark and copyright in the artwork of the Respondent’s Trade Mark / Label.

6. The Petitioners vide Application submitted that the Plaint did not disclose any cause of action and the relief claimed in the Suit was undervalued. It was also submitted that the learned Commercial Court did not have territorial jurisdiction as the Respondent failed to show actual sale or commercial transaction of any goods with the Impugned Trade Mark within the jurisdiction of the learned Commercial Court. The Application mentioned that the Petitioners have their principal place of business in Sonipat, Haryana and Rohini, New Delhi and therefore the Respondent could have invoked the jurisdiction of the Courts at Sonipat or Rohini, but not of the learned Commercial Court.

7. The objection regarding the valuation of the Suit was taken by the Petitioners at the first instance before the learned Commercial Court. Vide order dated 16.01.2025, the learned Commercial Court dismissed the said objection observing that there wa