Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

15. Insofar as territorial jurisdiction is concerned, the Plaintiff, in the present case, claims jurisdiction on various grounds. The paragraph relating to jurisdiction in the plaint is set out herein below:

"35. This Hon'ble Court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the present suit on the following grounds -
a. The Defendant is primarily offering its services through its website - www.exoncorp.com. The said website is an interactive website which means that it allows users all over the country to interact with the said company through their website. This allows a wide number of users to select the desired services offered by the said company and pay online through a portal available on the bottom of the Defendant's website under the head "Services" and further under the hyperlink - "Online Payments", which clearly implies that the Defendant is also providing their services in Delhi.
c. The cause of action has arisen in Delhi i.e. within the territorial jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court as the Defendant is offering services to all parts of India including Delhi."

The plea of jurisdiction is not based on Section 134 of the Trademarks Act, 1999 as in the case of Exxon Mobil Corporation & Anr. v. P.K. Sen (supra). It is based on Section 20 CPC on the ground that the Defendant is offering services through an interactive website and is promoting its business and services through various social media platforms. On the said social media platforms, the Defendant claims to be openly offering services in all parts of India. Thus, according to the Plaintiff, the cause of action has arisen within Delhi.

...
45. This court holds that in order to prima facie establish that the Defendant purposefully availed of the jurisdiction of this court, the Plaintiff would have to show that the Defendant engaged in some commercial activity in the forum State by targeting its website specifically at customers within that State. This is consistent with the law laid down in Cybersell and reiterated later in Toys R Us. It is also consistent with the application of the 'tighter' version of the 'effects' test which is 'targeting'. In any action for passing off or infringement, it would have to be shown that the Defendant by using its mark intended to pass off its goods as that of the Plaintiff's. A mere hosting of a website which can be accessible from anyone from within the jurisdiction of the court is not sufficient for this purpose. Also a mere posting of an advertisement by the Defendant depicting its mark on a passive website which does not enable the Defendant to enter into any commercial transaction with the viewer in the forum state cannot satisfy the requirement of giving rise to a cause of action in the forum state. Even an interactive website, which is not shown to be specifically targeted at viewers in the forum state for commercial transactions, will not result in the court of the forum state having jurisdiction. In sum, for the purposes of Section 20 (c) CPC, in order to show that some part of the cause of action has arisen in the forum state by the use of the internet by the Defendant, the Plaintiff will have to show prima facie that the said website, whether euphemistically termed as "passive plus" or "interactive" was specifically targeted at viewers in the forum state for commercial transactions. The Plaintiff would have to plead this and produce material to prima facie show that some commercial transaction using the website was entered into by the Defendant with a user of its website within the forum state and that the specific targeting of the forum state by the Defendant resulted in an injury or harm to the Plaintiff within the forum state. Question no. (ii) is answered accordingly."

...

24. In continuation of what was held by the Division Bench in World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc., I may state that the mode of booking/reserving rooms and other facilities particularly of dining therein, in hotels/resorts/spas, has changed over the years with maximum number of bookings/reservations being made through such third party websites, so much so that the rates available on the third party websites are also found to be considerably lower than the rates offered through traditional mode of agents or offices in major cities. Judicial notice can be taken of the fact that much of the volume of businesses of hotels is now through such third party websites, in comparison to the business through direct bookings and/or through travel agents. Thus, if the Courts at Delhi will have jurisdiction over subject matter of suit owing to defendants having interactive website accessible at Delhi and enabling defendants situated outside Delhi to carry on business at Delhi, I see no reason to hold that it will not be so where the defendants, instead of hosting its own interactive website, avails the service of third party websites to carry on business at Delhi. There is no rationale for carving out such a distinction. Certainly, making a booking/reservation, even if the same does not subsequently materialise, is part of carrying on business, inasmuch as the hotel which has taken the booking, even if has not received any payment, being unable to turn back a customer if shows up in pursuance to such booking. The defendants, by showing on their websites, their location to be at Delhi, are also found to be attracting and luring the customers, otherwise intending to visit Delhi, into believing that the hotels and resorts of the defendants are at Delhi, though actually, territorially speaking, outside Delhi. The defendants, cannot be permitted to take different stand/position while carrying on business than before this Court. In any case, such acts of the defendants amount to specifically targeting the viewers at Delhi, within the meaning of Banyan Tree Holding (P) Ltd. supra."