Facts of the Case:
The present case revolves around a dispute between Shakthi Fashion and APB Designs (Defendants) and Burberry Limited (Plaintiff) regarding the alleged infringement of copyright, trademark, passing off, and other claims. The Plaintiff, a renowned luxury garments brand, owns the trademark 'BURBERRY' and operates globally, including in India.

The Plaintiff filed a suit against the Defendants for selling counterfeit 'BURBERRY' branded goods, which were also promoted on the website IndiaMart. Prior to the suit, the Plaintiff lodged a complaint that led to the seizure of a large volume of counterfeit goods bearing the 'BURBERRY' mark.

Court and Bench:
The case was heard in the High Court of Delhi, with Justice Prathiba M. Singh presiding over the matter.

Issues Involved:
The primary issue in this case is whether the Commercial Court had territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit filed by the Plaintiff. The Defendants argued that they had not sold any products in Delhi and, therefore, the Court lacked jurisdiction. The Defendants moved an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) to reject the plaint on the ground of territorial jurisdiction.

Principle:
At the stage of an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the Court is required to consider only the averments of the plaint and the documents annexed to it. The Court cannot delve into the written statement or the pleas raised by the defendant. The cause of action, as stated in Section 20 of the CPC, determines the territorial jurisdiction of the Court. If the plaintiff has sufficiently alleged that the defendants are offering their goods for sale within the jurisdiction of the Court, the Court may have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit.

Analysis:
The Court analyzed the allegations made in the plaint and the documents filed by the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff claimed that the Defendants were offering their goods for sale through a web portal and meeting dealers in New Delhi for the sale of counterfeit goods.

The Defendants argued that the IndiaMart website listing, which featured their products, did not belong to them and was not an interactive website.

The Court referred to precedents and observed that the Court's jurisdiction should be determined based on the averments in the plaint and the documents filed by the Plaintiff. The Court held that the cause of action had been established within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court, as the Defendants were planning to sell counterfeit goods clandestinely within that jurisdiction.

Comment/Conclusion:
In this case, the Court rejected the Defendants' application seeking the rejection of the plaint based on territorial jurisdiction. The Court found that the Plaintiffs had sufficiently established the cause of action within the jurisdiction of the Court, based on the allegations made in the plaint.

The Court emphasized that at the stage of an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, it is not appropriate to delve into the merits or demerits of the respective contentions based on disputed facts. The Court's decision affirms that the Court has territorial jurisdiction if the cause of action arises within its jurisdiction, regardless of the physical location of the Defendants.