Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

5. It was further argued that the purported cause of action is wrongly predicated on the websites being accessible at Delhi. There is no averment that Defendants have actually sold products on any third party e-commerce website in Delhi. As far as Defendants' websites are concerned, they are passive websites for providing information about their products to the viewers and products cannot be purchased from these websites. Division Bench of this Court in Kohinoor Seed Fields India Pvt. Ltd. v. Veda Seed Sciences Pvt. Ltd., 2025 SCC OnLine Del 8727, had the occasion to deal with passive versus interactive websites and it was held that the judgment in the case of World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. v. M/s. Reshma Collection & Ors., 2014 SCC OnLine Del 2031, extends in a case of e-commerce, the situs to include every place where a commercial transaction could be concluded and goods bought or sold, even if no actual transaction is shown. In the instant case, there is no potential of any commercial transaction being concluded in Delhi since the goods in question are pharmaceuticals etc. and Defendants do not have a drug license for Delhi.

9. It was also urged that a bare reading of the plaint would show that Plaintiff has specifically pleaded that Defendant No.1 applied for registration of impugned trademark against which Plaintiff filed opposition but no counter statement was filed by Defendant No.1 and no steps have been taken for renewal of the application after 19.04.2024. Defendant No.3 is the manufacturer of Defendant No.1 and internet search revealed several webpages of Defendant No.2, where goods are offered for sale under the impugned trademarks and . It is also pleaded that Defendants are offering for sale pharmaceutical and medicinal products under the impugned trademarks/labels , and through their respective websites and third party websites including but not limited to www.indiamart.com and www.justdial.com. It is specifically pleaded in paragraph 36 of the plaint that there is a strong apprehension that Defendants might be conducting their impugned activities through their websites and other third party interactive websites, all of which are accessible and visible to traders, customers and public throughout India including Delhi and details of the websites and respective URLs have also been furnished with respect to www.indiamart.com and www.justdial.com which show that impugned goods are available on these websites. The dedicated website of Defendant No.1 www.regoshin.com has a 'Contact Us' webpage which reflects the address of registered office at Delhi as also the corporate address, contact details, timings of visitation and business coordinates, communication details and commercial touch points, through which Defendant No.1 can be contacted and this is an invitation to potential customers to buy products including those in Delhi. The website contains the products' listings of Defendant No.1 and is accessible and visible to traders, consumers and public at large throughout India including Delhi and there is no gainsaying that potential customers are being lured into placing orders after seeing the website, even assuming the website is passive and hence, part cause of action has arisen at Delhi.

30. The distinction between passive, passive plus, and interactive websites as laid down in Banyan Tree (supra) is not a rigid categorization that can be mechanically applied at the preliminary stage, but requires detailed examination of the actual functionality, purpose, and effect of the Impugned Website, which can only be properly undertaken through trial after Parties lead evidence about the nature of online interactions, the purpose, functionality and effect of the Impugned Website, and whether any confusion or deception actually occurred in Delhi.

11. In view of the above, the plea of lack of territorial jurisdiction is rejected at this prima facie stage. The Defendants would always have the right to raise the issue of territorial jurisdiction at the stage of trial."

23. The aforesaid judgments, in my view, apply to the present case on all four corners. Plaintiff has pleaded in the plaint that Defendants are soliciting/networking with various dealers/shopkeepers/retailers/chemists for selling and distributing various pharmaceutical goods. There is a strong apprehension that Defendants might be conducted the impugned activities through their websites and other third-party interactive websites, all of which are accessible and visible to traders, consumers and public throughout India including Delhi. It is further stated that Defendants can be contacted directly or indirectly through these websites and URLs of the websites have been furnished in a tabular form in paragraph 36 of the plaint. It is further stated that Defendant No.1 has its registered office in Delhi and has obtained registration certification from Delhi office. In the paragraph related to 'jurisdiction', it is reiterated that the impugned products are listed on third- party websites, including but not limited to www.indiamart.com and www.justdial.com and further that customers, retailers, distributors in Delhi can establish contact with the Defendants through their websites. In support of this averment, Plaintiffs have filed screenshot of webpages of Defendant No.1's website www.regoshin.com which is a 'Contact Us' webpage and on clicking on the same, a potential customer is taken to another webpage, which reflects the registered address of Defendant No.1 at Delhi as also corporate address, contact details and visitation hours. Additionally, the product listings are also visible on a separate tab under the heading 'Our Products'. These averments have to be accepted as true and correct at this stage and these assertions prima facie establish that products of the Defendants are accessible to consumers in Delhi and as held in Sun Pharmaceutical (supra), Defendants are purposefully availing themselves of the forum by maintaining an online presence that is accessible to and target consumers in Delhi. In this backdrop, prima facie there is a potential for confusion and deception amongst the Delhi based consumers, when they come across the listings of the Defendants on their websites. It is also important to point out that there is a categorical averment in the plaint that proprietors of Defendants No.2 and 3 are family members and/or relatives of Director of Defendant No.1 and Defendant No.3 is a manufacturer for Defendant No.1, while Defendant No.4 is also involved in manufacturing and exporting of goods under the impugned mark/label ROYA/ and all the working jointly.