The intersection of e-commerce platforms and trademark jurisdiction presents complex legal challenges, as demonstrated in the case under consideration. This article critically examines the implications of selling goods through interactive websites in the context of trademark disputes, focusing on the recent decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench regarding the jurisdictional aspect in a trademark infringement case.

Background:
The dispute centers around the alleged infringement of the trademark "SHAKTI & SHAKTI LENO" by the appellant, who operates under the name of Shree Girirajji & Company. The respondent, engaged in the manufacturing and sale of various bags and related products under the said trademark, accuses the appellant of adopting a similar label, "SUPER SHAKTI LENO," and a device mark for its goods. Additionally, the respondent contends that the appellant sells these goods through an interactive website hosted on www.indiamart.com.

Jurisdictional Challenge:
The appellant, seeking to challenge the jurisdiction of the Commercial Court, invoked Order XXXIX Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. However, the Court rejected this application, leading to the appellant's appeal before the Division Bench. The crux of the jurisdictional argument revolves around whether the Commercial Court has the authority to adjudicate disputes arising from online sales activities.

Online Sales and Trademark Infringement:
The central issue pertains to whether the appellant's use of similar trademarks on its goods sold through the interactive website constitutes trademark infringement. While the appellant denies selling goods bearing the impugned trademarks through the website, the absence of a specific denial in the written statement raises questions about the veracity of this claim. The Hon'ble Division Bench observed this discrepancy and emphasized the need for clarity regarding the goods sold via the online platform.

Applicability of Trademark Law to E-commerce:
In contemporary commerce, online platforms serve as significant channels for sales and distribution. However, this digital landscape complicates traditional notions of jurisdiction and enforcement of intellectual property rights. Courts worldwide grapple with issues of territorial jurisdiction, online presence, and the extraterritorial reach of trademark laws concerning e-commerce activities.

Conclusion:
The dismissal of the appeal by the Division Bench underscores the significance of clarifying the jurisdictional scope concerning online trademark infringement disputes. The evolving nature of e-commerce necessitates a nuanced understanding of jurisdictional principles to effectively address trademark violations in the digital sphere. This case highlights the imperative for clear legal frameworks and judicial interpretations to navigate the complex terrain of interactive websites and trademark jurisdiction, ensuring equitable resolution of disputes in the online marketplace.

Case Title: Shree Giriraj and Co Vs Gagan Pagrani Proprietor Plastica Industries
Order Date: 14.03.2024
Case No. FAO (COMM) 47/2024
Neutral Citation:2024:DHC:2230
Name of Court: Delhi High Court
Name of Hon'ble Judge: Vibhu Bakhru and Tara Vitasta Ganju H.J.

Disclaimer:
This article is meant for informational purposes only and should not be construed as substitute for legal advice as Ideas, thoughts, views, information, discussions and interpretation perceived and expressed herein are are subject to my subjectivity and may contain human errors in perception, interpretation and presentation of the fact and issue of law involved herein.

Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor - Patent and Trademark Attorney
Email: [email protected], Ph no: 9990389539