Introduction: The present case concerns a trademark infringement and passing off suit filed by Johnson & Johnson PTE Ltd. against Mr. Abbireddi Satish Kumar and others before the Delhi High Court. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants were selling electrolyte drinks under the deceptively similar mark "ORSI" and using a trade dress similar to its well-known brand, "ORS-L" / "ORSL". The main issue before the Court was whether the Delhi High Court had territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit, as the defendants contested the jurisdiction, arguing that they do not conduct business in Delhi. The suit was filed under:Section 134(1) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. Sections 27 and 29 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. Section 20(c) of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), 1908.

Factual Background of the Proceedings: Plaintiff’s Business & Trademark Usage: Johnson & Johnson PTE Ltd. (plaintiff) is a Singapore-based company that manufactures healthcare products. It acquired the brand ORS-L and ORSL from Jagdale Industries Limited via an Assignment Deed dated November 7, 2014. The ORS-L brand has been in use in India since 2003, with multiple flavors (Lemon, Orange, and Apple). The plaintiff is the registered proprietor of various ORS-L and ORSL formative trademarks in Classes 30, 31, 32, and 33. Defendant’s Alleged InfringementThe defendants were marketing and selling electrolyte drinks under the brand "ORSI", which the plaintiff claimed was deceptively similar to "ORSL." Defendant No. 1 (Mr. Abbireddi Satish Kumar) was the marketer of the impugned products under "ORSI." Pure Tropic (Defendants 2-5) was the manufacturer of these products. Defendant No. 1 had obtained trademark registration (No. 5323696, dated February 10, 2022) for the mark ORSI and had applied for additional trademarks under Class 32.

Plaintiff’s Cease-and-Desist Actions & Discovery of Infringement: In September 2022, the plaintiff discovered the impugned ORSI products in India. A Cease-and-Desist notice (dated September 5, 2022) was sent to Defendant No. 1 and M/s Pure Tropic, but it remained undelivered. The plaintiff later found that Defendant No. 1 had filed another trademark application (No. 5525855, dated July 12, 2022) for ORSI. In September 2023, the plaintiff discovered that the defendants were selling their products on the website www.dhanalakshmiagency.in, which allegedly delivers products across India, including Delhi.

Defendant No. 1’s Arguments (Application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC - Rejection of Suit): The defendant filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, seeking rejection of the plaint on the grounds of lack of territorial jurisdiction. Key arguments:The suit was filed to harass and eliminate a competitor. No cause of action arose in Delhi as Defendant No. 1’s business was concentrated in Andhra Pradesh (85%), with small portions in Odisha, Tamil Nadu, and Telangana. The plaintiff failed to provide sufficient evidence to establish that the impugned products were sold in Delhi. The third-party website (www.dhanalakshmiagency.in) was allegedly operated by a trader in Vijayawada (Mr. Sagar), who previously worked for the plaintiff. The defendant had no connection with the website. The website’s jurisdiction clause mentioned Delhi courts, but this did not prove actual sales in Delhi.

Plaintiff’s Arguments in Reply: The plaintiff opposed the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, asserting that:The defendant’s arguments did not satisfy the threshold for rejection under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. The website (www.dhanalakshmiagency.in) offered delivery to Delhi, which was sufficient to invoke jurisdiction. The website was modified and later shut down only after the filing of the suit—indicating an attempt to evade legal action. The defendants' product was listed on IndiaMart, which offered nationwide delivery, including Delhi.

Court’s Reasoning on Territorial Jurisdiction: The Delhi High Court rejected the defendant's application, ruling that it had territorial jurisdiction based on the following findings: Presence of an interactive website: The website www.dhanalakshmiagency.in was accessible from Delhi and accepted orders from Delhi. The website delivered across India, including Delhi, which constitutes "use in the course of trade" under Section 2(2)(c) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.  Legal Precedents Supporting Territorial Jurisdiction: Shakti Fashion & Another v. Burberry Limited, 2022 SCC OnLine Del 1636Held that territorial jurisdiction exists if the defendant offers goods for sale through an interactive web portal. Burger King Corporation v. Techchand Shewakramani, 2018 SCC OnLine Del 10881Held that advertising and promoting goods online constitutes ‘use of a mark’ under the Trade Marks Act.Plaintiff's Cause of Action Was Valid:The order placed by the plaintiff from Delhi was accepted, even if the delivery had not been completed. Use of a mark includes advertising and offering goods for sale, even if no actual sale occurs in the jurisdiction.  No Merits in Defendant’s Arguments: The defendant’s plea that it had no connection to the website was not supported by evidence. The website was modified and later deactivated after the filing of the suit, showing attempted evasion.

Decision of the Court: The Delhi High Court dismissed Defendant No. 1’s application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, ruling that:The suit could proceed in Delhi since the impugned products were advertised and available for order in Delhi. Territorial jurisdiction was established based on online accessibility and intent to sell in Delhi. The Court held that:The plaintiff had raised triable issues regarding infringement and passing off. The defendants’ arguments lacked merit and were an attempt to avoid accountability.

Concluding Note:This case reinforces the principle that in trademark infringement cases, territorial jurisdiction extends to locations where the impugned products are advertised and available for sale, even if no actual sales occur. The judgment upholds Delhi’s jurisdiction in online trademark disputes, protecting brand owners from deceptive business practices.

Date of Order: February 4, 2025

Case No.: CS(COMM) 801/2023

Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:662

Court: High Court of Delhi

Presiding Judge: Hon’ble Ms. Justice Mini Pushkarna

High Court of Delhi

Disclaimer:The information shared here is intended to serve the public interest by offering insights and perspectives. However, readers are advised to exercise their own discretion when interpreting and applying this information. The content herein is subjective and may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.