Introduction
In a clear and practical ruling on territorial jurisdiction in intellectual property disputes, the Delhi High Court has reiterated that courts must examine the plaintiff’s pleadings at face value when defendants challenge jurisdiction at an early stage.
The judgement highlights how a company’s registered office in Delhi and an accessible “Contact Us” webpage, India Mart, and Just Dial listing can establish sufficient connection for a Delhi court to hear a trademark and passing-off case, even if the plaintiff operates from another state.
Factual And Procedural Background
Ravinder Singh, trading as Royal International from Amritsar, Punjab, filed a suit in the Delhi High Court seeking a permanent injunction against Regoshin Healthcare Pvt Ltd and others.
He alleged that the defendants were infringing his “Royal” trademarks and trade dress by selling similar marks on dietary supplements and pharmaceutical products.
Defendants No. 1 and 3 moved an application under Order VII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, requesting the plaint be returned for lack of territorial jurisdiction.
They argued that:
- The plaintiff neither resides nor carries on business in Delhi.
- The plaintiff has no drug licence for sales in Delhi.
- The defendants’ websites are merely passive in nature.
The matter was heard by Justice Jyoti Singh.
Main Dispute Before The Court
The main dispute was whether the Delhi High Court had territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit.
The defendants claimed that no cause of action arose in Delhi because:
- The plaintiff’s business is situated in Punjab.
- The defendants do not sell products in Delhi due to the absence of necessary licences.
The plaintiff countered that the
- The defendants’ registered office is located in Delhi.
- The defendants’ website contains a functional “Contact Us” page accessible in Delhi.
- The defendants’ products are listed on popular platforms like IndiaMart and Justdial.
- These online listings are accessible across India, including Delhi.
Key Jurisdictional Contentions
| Party | Main Argument |
|---|---|
| Plaintiff | The Delhi court has jurisdiction due to the registered office, website accessibility, and online listings. |
| Defendants | No cause of action arose in Delhi, as business activities are outside Delhi. |
Reasoning And Analysis Of The Court
The court explained that when deciding an application for return of plaint under Order VII Rule 10 CPC, the court must follow the principle of “demurrer”. This means the court accepts all averments in the plaint as true and does not look into the defendant’s defence at this preliminary stage.
The judge referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in Exphar SA v. Eupharma Laboratories Ltd. (2004) 3 SCC 688, which laid down that jurisdiction objections at this stage must be tested only on the basis of facts pleaded in the plaint.
Territorial Jurisdiction Under Trade Marks Act And CPC
The Court noted that while Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act gives an additional forum where the plaintiff resides or works, ordinary rules under Section 20 of the CPC also apply.
Here, the plaintiff had specifically pleaded that:
- Defendant No. 1 has its registered office in Delhi.
- The defendant maintains a website with a “Contact Us” page showing a Delhi address and contact details.
- The defendant lists products on third-party websites, namely IndiaMart and Justdial, accessible in Delhi.
These averments, taken as true, were held sufficient to establish that part of the cause of action arose in Delhi.
Important Judgments Discussed By The Court
The court discussed several important judgements. She relied on:
- World Wrestling Entertainment Inc. v. Reshma Collection, 2014 SCC OnLine Del 2031
- Kohinoor Seed Fields India Pvt Ltd v. Veda Seed Sciences Pvt Ltd, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 8727
These cases were referred to explain the difference between passive and interactive websites.
The court also referred to the following:
- Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd v. Artura Pharmaceuticals, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 8642
- Cadila Healthcare Ltd v. Uniza Healthcare LLP, 2021 SCC OnLine Del 3330
In these matters, similar “Contact Us” pages and online listings were considered enough for jurisdiction at the prima facie stage.
The judge clarified that questions like
- Whether actual sales occurred, or
- Whether the website is truly passive
require full evidence at trial and cannot be decided while considering the return of the plaint.
Court Rejection Of Drug Licence Objection
The court rejected the argument that absence of a drug licence in Delhi automatically removes jurisdiction, noting this is a defence to be examined later.
Final Decision Of The Court
The Delhi High Court dismissed the application under Order VII Rule 10 CPC. The suit will proceed in Delhi.
However, the defendants were given liberty to raise the territorial jurisdiction issue again at later stages, including during the hearing of the interim injunction application.
Pleadings were directed to be completed, and the matter listed for further proceedings.
Point Of Law Settled In The Case
This judgement reinforces that in trademark and passing-off suits involving online presence, a defendant’s registered office in the city combined with an accessible website having a “Contact Us” feature, IndiaMART listings, and Justdial listings can validly confer territorial jurisdiction on the court.
Such jurisdictional challenges at the initial stage are decided only on the plaintiff’s pleadings and disputed factual issues regarding
- Actual sales, or
- Website interactivity
are left for trial.
This provides clarity and practical guidance for businesses involved in e-commerce and IP disputes.
Case Details
| Particulars | Details |
|---|---|
| Title | Ravinder Singh v. Regoshin Healthcare Pvt Ltd & Ors. |
| Date of Order | 15 May 2026 |
| Case Number | CS(COMM) 383/2025 |
| Neutral Citation | 2026:DHC:4358 |
| Name of Court | High Court of Delhi |
| Name of the Honourable Judge | Justice Jyoti Singh |
Disclaimer: Readers are advised not to treat this as substitute for legal advice, as it may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation
Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi
