Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/004091 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."

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/004091 above. Court finds strength in this view from the judgment of this Court in Millennium & Copthorne International Limited (supra), where it was held that if the Courts at Delhi have jurisdiction over the subject matter of the suit owing to Defendants having interactive website accessible at Delhi and enabling Defendants situated outside Delhi to carry on business at Delhi, there was no reason to hold that it will not be so where the Defendants, instead of hosting their own interactive website, avail the services of third party websites to carry on business at Delhi and there is no rationale for carving out such a distinction. Relevant para of the judgment is as follows:

"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 This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/004091 is the cause of action, was made in USA and governed by Global Store Terms and Conditions and had this been disclosed, the suit was liable to be dismissed. Reliance is placed on the judgments in T. Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal and Another, (1977) 4 SCC 467 and Canara Bank v. P. Selathal and Others, (2020) 13 SCC 143, to argue that the Court cannot be a mute spectator to Plaintiffs' stratagem, concealment and deliberate non- disclosure.

19. In my view, the contention is misplaced as the non-disclosure of the Terms and Conditions of Sale of the products, more particularly, those which are the subject matter of the trap purchase, is not material for the purpose of deciding the present application. The relief sought in the present suit is for infringement and passing off against the Defendants and in terms of the provisions of the Act as well as judgments alluded to above, offer to sell even on an interactive website targeting the customers in a particular State is enough to grant jurisdiction of the Court as well as to give cause of action to the Plaintiffs. A perusal of the 'Terms and Conditions for the Global Store' shows that the same apply when a customer purchases products from the Amazon Global Store and thereupon he acknowledges that the sale takes place in USA and is subject to laws and regulations of USA and that the State of Washington will have the exclusive jurisdiction. As rightly contended on behalf of the Plaintiffs, these Terms and Conditions purely govern relationships between a buyer and a seller, i.e., parties to the contract and do not bind the Plaintiffs who have filed the present case for violation of their statutory and common law rights against the Defendants for selling counterfeit products using their registered trademarks. Additionally, it is the offer for sale within the jurisdiction of this Court This is a digitally signed Judgement.