Jurisdiction in internet-based disputes is established through interactivity and accessibility of the Defendant's website, creating potential consumer confusion.

JUDGMENT

TEJAS KARIA, J I.A. 17275/2025

1. This is an Application filed by the Defendant under Order VII Rule 10 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”) seeking return of Plaint for lack of territorial jurisdiction of this Court to entertain and decide the present Suit.

2. The present Suit has been filed by the Plaintiff seeking permanent injunction of infringement of Trade Marks, passing off, unfair competition, damages / rendition of accounts of profits and delivery up from restraining the Defendant from using the Marks, ‘PEPFIX’ and ‘NEOVITAL’ (“Impugned Marks”), which are deceptively similar to the Plaintiff’s registered Trade Marks, ‘PEPFIZ’ and ‘REVITAL’ (“Plaintiff’s Trade Marks”).

3. Vide order dated 21.11.2024, this Court granted ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendant stating that the Defendant, its directors, assignees, affiliates, associates, predecessors, successors in business, their distributors, dealers, stockists, wholesalers, retailers / chemists, custodians, franchisees, licensees, importers, exporters, servants, agents, e-commerce and warehouse aggregators and all persons claiming through and / or under them or acting on their behalf, are restrained from selling, offering for sale, advertising, distributing, marketing, exhibiting for sale, trading in or otherwise directly or indirectly dealing in goods under the Impugned Marks, ‘PEPFIX’ and ‘NEOVITAL’, or any other extensions and / or any other Trade Marks containing the words, ‘PEPFIX’ and ‘NEOVITAL’, or any other mark that may be identical or deceptively similar to the Plaintiff’s Trade Marks, ‘PEPFIZ’ and ‘REVITAL’, amounting to infringement of the registered Trade Marks of the Plaintiff as well as passing off the Defendant’s goods and business, as those of the Plaintiff’s goods and business.

4. By way of this Application, the Defendant has challenged the territorial jurisdiction of this Court on the ground that the Defendant is having its Registered Office in Chennai, Tamil Nadu and manufacturing facility in Andhra Pradesh. Further, the Defendant is manufacturing the products under the Impugned Marks only for export purposes and there is no sale in India. Hence, this Court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain or decide the present Suit as the Defendant does not have place of business or offer for sale any products having Impugned Marks within the jurisdiction of this Court.

5. The Defendant is not hosting an interactive website and the consumers cannot purchase any product from the website http://www.arturapharma.com/ (“Impugned Website”). The “Contact Us” Section at the Impugned Website also is not meant for placing orders for any of the products. The Defendant is not selling the products under the Impugned Marks in India on any of the third-party websites / e-commerce portals including https://www.pharmahopers.com (“Subject Website”). Furthermore, Subject Website is not an e-commerce portal, and a consumer cannot purchase a product from there. As per the information hosted at the Subject Website, it is only a directory of manufacturers, importers, exporters and the respective pharmaceutical preparation.

SUBMISSIONSONBEHALFOFTHEAPPLICANT/DEFENDANT

6. The learned Counsel for the Defendant submitted that the Plaintiff has not filed any sales invoice showing purchase / delivery of products under the Impugned Marks in Delhi. Further, the Plaintiff has not filed any document to show that any purchase order can be placed through the Impugned Website.

7. The learned Counsel for t