Bulgari Spa vs Notandas Gems Private Limited on 21 February, 2022
18. Ms. Bobde submits that the sole outlet of the defendant at South
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
CS(COMM) 658/2021 Page 14 of 30
By:SUNIL SINGH NEGI
Signing
Date:24.02.2022 18:22
Extension, on the basis which the jurisdiction of this Court has been
invoked in para 50 of the plaint, has been shut since long and the
defendant presently has only one outlet at Mumbai. She also disputes the
plaintiff's contention that the defendant's products are available online
and submits, on instructions, that they are not so available. Apropos the
contention that the defendant's website is interactive and can be accessed
within the jurisdiction of this Court, Ms. Bobde has invited my attention
to the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Banyan Tree
Holding (P) Limited v. A. Murali Krishna Reddy5, and of a learned
Single Judge in Karans Gurukul Classes v. Gurukul Classes IIT
Division6. She submits, on the basis of these decisions, that mere
interactivity cannot justify invocation of the jurisdiction of this Court
against the defendant and that it would additionally have to be shown that
the defendant was targeting customers within the jurisdiction of this
Court through its website, as would amount to purposeful invocation of
the jurisdiction of this Court by the defendant. Additionally, she submits,
it would have to be shown that commercial transactions have actually
taken place across the website. Absent these factors, Ms. Bobde submits
that the present plaint is bad for want of territorial jurisdiction.