- Biological Inventions
- Brand Valuation
- Competition Law
- Constitutional Law
- Consumer Law
- Copyright Infringement
- Copyright Litigation
- Corporate Law
- Digital Right Management
- Educational Conferences/ Seminar
- Fashion Law
- Hi Tech Patent Commercialisation
- Hi Tech Patent Litigation
- Intellectual Property
- Intellectual Property Protection
- IP Commercialization
- IP Licensing
- IP Litigation
- IP Practice in India
- IPAB Decisions
- Legal Issues
- Media & Entertainment Law
- News & Updates
- Patent Act
- Patent Commercialisation
- Patent Filing
- patent infringement
- Patent Licensing
- Patent Litigation
- Patent Marketing
- Patent Opposition
- Patent Rule Amendment
- Pharma- biotech- Patent Commercialisation
- Pharma/Biotech Patent Litigations
- Section 3(D)
- Social Media
- Sports Law
- Telecom Law
- Trademark Litigation
In the above case, plaintiff sought permanent injunction against the defendants who was running a restaurant at Hyderabad, under the impugned trademarks ‘SOCIAL’ and ‘STONE WATER’ and its services were available through Zomato. The court held that the plaintiff would have to produce material prima facie to show that some commercial transaction using the website was entered into by the Defendant through the – ZOMATO, 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.
Defendants contended that this Court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present suit as the defendant neither has his registered office within the jurisdiction of the said Court nor carries on any business within the jurisdiction of this Court. Mere existence of a website without proof of ‘the effect’ does not clothe this Court with territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present suit. Returning the plaint, the court held that a mere hosting of a website that is accessible by anyone within the jurisdiction of the court is not sufficient for this purpose.
Convinced with the Defendant’s contention, the Court Further relied on Banyan Tree Holding (P) Limited v. A. Murali Reddy and Anr which held that a passive website, with no intention to specifically target audiences outside the State where the host of the website is located, cannot vest the forum court with jurisdiction. The Hon’ble Court also observed that for the purposes of a passing off or an infringement action (where the plaintiff is not located within the jurisdiction of the court), the injury on the plaintiffs business, goodwill or reputation within the forum state as a result of the Defendant’s website being accessed in the forum state would have to be shown.
Earlier, the stance of the court was a bit different in the case of World Wrestling Entertainment v. M/S Reshma Collection & Ors– The Delhi High court had held that the mere website of the party referring to various goods is not an offer but an invitation to an offer, just as a menu in a restaurant. The invitation, only if accepted by a customer in Delhi, becomes an offer made by the customer in Delhi for purchasing the goods “advertised” on the website of the appellant/plaintiff. Further, it held that mere accessibility of website in a forum state which ‘solicits’ its business, through which Defendant’s goods and services are sold, is enough to raise cause of action and in determining the personal jurisdiction in Delhi.
Legal Provisions in Regard to Jurisdiction
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 contains the provisions under section 20 with respect to institution of the suits where defendant resides or cause of action arises . It reads as : Subject to the limitations aforesaid, every suit shall be instituted in a Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction –
- The defendant, or each of the defendants where there are more than one, at the time of the commencement of the Suit, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business, or personally works for gain; or
- any of the defendants, where there are more than one, at the time of the commencement of the suit, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business, or personally works for gain, provided that in such case either the leave of the Court is given, or the defendants who do not reside, or carry on business, or personally work for gain, as aforesaid, acquiesce in such institution; or
- the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises.”
[Explanation]: A corporation shall be deemed to carry on business at its sole or principal office in India or, in respect of any cause of action arising at any place where it has also a subordinate office, at such place.
Section 62  provides that every suit or other civil proceeding in respect of the infringement of copyright in any work or the infringement of any other right conferred by this Act shall be instituted in the district court having jurisdiction.
Learned author Mulla in the Code of Civil Procedure, 18th Edn., has observed that under clauses (a) to (c) of section 20, plaintiff has a choice of forum to institute a suit. The intention behind Explanation to section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure is that once the corporation has a subordinate office in the place where the cause of action arises wholly or in part, it cannot be heard to say that it cannot be sued there because it did not carry on business at that place. The linking of the place with the cause of 12 action in the Explanation where subordinate office of the corporation is situated is reflective of the intention of the Legislature and such a place has to be the place of the filing of the suit and not the principal place of business. Ordinarily the suit has to be filed at the place where there is principal place of business of the corporation.
The Indian Courts have always followed the parent legislation – Civil Procedure Code, 1908 and have constantly tried to harmonize the technological advancement with the statute. Therefore, in the following caselaws, the courts have explained Section 20 of the CPC with reference to IPR and internet jurisdiction.
Indian Performing Rights Society Ltd. v. Sanjay Dalia & Anr. – The Supreme Court of India interpreted section 62 of the Copyright Act, 1957 and section 134(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 with regard to the place where the plaintiff can institute a suit. Wherein it observed that “The very intendment of the insertion of provision in the Copyright Act and Trade Marks Act is the convenience of the plaintiff. The rule of convenience of the parties has been given a statutory expression in section 20 of the CPC as well. The interpretation of provisions has to be such which prevents the mischief of causing inconvenience to parties.”
Banyan Tree Holding (P) Limited vs A. Murali Krishna Reddy & Anr. on 23 November, 2009– The division bench of the Delhi High Court held that “Under clauses (a) to (c) of section 20 CPC, a plaintiff has a choice of forum and cannot be compelled to go to a place of business or residence of the defendant and can file a suit where the cause of action arises.”
In Icon Health And Fitness, Inc vs Sheriff Usman And Anr. – the Delhi High Court assumed jurisdiction under Clauses (a) and (b), stating that the defendants ‘carried on business’ in Delhi. The entirety of the Court’s reasoning for the above is contained in two sentences – “Though the defendants are not residing in Delhi, however, the defendants are offering their fitness apps and brands through App Store, Google Play Store and e-commerce portals like www.amazon.in which can be accessed and operated from all over the country, including from Delhi. Thus, it can be said that the defendants are carrying on business or working for gain at Delhi and this Court has territorial jurisdiction to try and decide the present suit as per section 20 of the CPC, 1908
At the outset, the Court does not subscribe to the view that mere accessibility of the Defendants website in Delhi would enable this Court to exercise jurisdiction. However, a passive website, with no intention to specifically target audiences in the forum State where the host of the website is located, cannot vest the forum court with jurisdiction. The Court in Impresario Entertainment & Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. vs S & D Hospitality, took a very balanced stand and logically differentiated the concept of ‘mere presence of website’ and ‘targeting the forum state’. Thus, it is appreciated that the Court is not rigid and is flexible in providing a reasonable and tenable judgments by considering different facts and circumstances. Hence, it can be seen that the Indian Judiciary is swiftly moving towards a new jurisprudence on internet jurisdiction, in accordance to section 20 of CPC.
 Decided on: 3rd January, 2018 ; CS(COMM) 111/2017
 The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, S-20 (c) – Other suits to be instituted where defendants reside or cause of action arises.
 Cybersell, Inc. v. Cybersell, Inc., 130 F.3d 414
 CS (OS) No. 894/2008
 The Copyright Act, 1957, Section-62-Jurisdiction of court over matters arising under this chapter.
 Banyan Tree Holding (P) Ltd