In trademark infringement suits, jurisdiction may be established where a defendant’s interactive online presence facilitates trade communication and promotion within the forum, regardless of whether sales are concluded, provided the plaint’s averments establish a prima facie cause of action under the demurrer principle.

JUDGMENT :

TEJAS KARIA, J

I.A. 16193/2025

1. The present Application has been filed by Defendant No. 1 / Applicant under Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”) seeking rejection of the Plaint filed by the Plaintiff.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT / DEFENDANT NO. 1:

2. The learned Counsel for the Applicant / Defendant No. 1 advanced the following submissions:

2.1. The Plaint is liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC on the grounds that this Court lacks territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present Suit.

2.2. Under Section 20 of the CPC, a Suit may be instituted only where the defendants reside, carry on business, or where the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises. In the present case, Defendant No. 1 carries on business exclusively at Ahmedabad, as is acknowledged by the Plaintiff in the Memorandum of Parties to the Plaint as well as in the supporting documents placed on record. Further, the Plaintiff’s principal place of business is also situated in Ahmedabad. Accordingly, this Court dees not have the territorial jurisdiction to try the present Suit.

2.3. The Plaintiff has sought to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court on two principal grounds: firstly, that Defendant No. 1 intends to trade across India; and secondly, that Defendant No. 1 is selling the alleged infringing goods and delivering within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, however, Defendant No. 1 carries on business solely in Ahmedabad and has never sold any of the alleged infringing goods outside Ahmedabad.

2.4. A mere advertisement having spillover circulation within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court is insufficient to confer jurisdiction. In the present case, the advertisement on the Justdial portal was specifically directed at customers in the State of Gujarat, as is evident from the contents of the advertisement itself.

2.5. In any event, even assuming that Defendant No. 1 had advertised its alleged infringing products in Delhi, such fact alone would not vest this Court with jurisdiction to try the present Suit, as the Plaintiff has not pleaded any commercial transaction, sale, or delivery within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. There is nothing on record to show that any order for the alleged infringing products was ever placed in Delhi through Justdial.

2.6. Further, the mere listing of products on a passive website does not constitute a cause of action sufficient to maintain the Suit before this Court.

3. In view of the foregoing submissions, it is prayed that the present Application be allowed.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF:

4. The learned Counsel for the Non-Applicant / Plaintiff advanced the following submissions:

4.1. For the purpose of deciding the objection to the territorial jurisdiction of this Court to entertain the present Suit, the averments contained in the Plaint are required to be assumed to be true. The Plaintiff has specifically pleaded that Defendant No. 1 is carrying on business in Delhi through an interactive e-commerce platform, namely Justdial, as a result whereof consumers within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court are likely to be confused and misled into purchasing Defendant No. 1’s products under the belief that the same emanate from the Plaintiff.

4.2. Defendant No. 1 has not denied that the Justdial listing of