The Delhi High Court has clarified that the mere accessibility of a website in the National Capital cannot establish territorial jurisdiction in intellectual property disputes. The ruling came in a trademark and copyright dispute between two Kanpur-based chemical companies, Vikrant Chemico Industries Pvt Ltd and Shri Gopal Engineering and Chemical Works Pvt Ltd.
Justice Amit Bansal observed that a passive website, one that simply lists goods without any interactive feature or evidence of transactions within Delhi, cannot constitute purposeful targeting of consumers in the jurisdiction. The Court also noted that executing a trademark assignment or registering a mark in Delhi, by itself, does not give rise to a cause of action unless there is clear evidence of commercial activity within the territory.
The plaintiff, Vikrant Chemico Industries, asserted rights over the marks “Doctor Brand Phenyle” and “Doctor Brand Germ Troll,” claiming decades of bona fide use and extensive goodwill, supported by a copyright registration dating back to 1999 for its packaging artwork.
The defendants, however, relied on historical business arrangements and an assignment deed executed in 1996, arguing that their marks “Doctor Hazel’s Brand Phenyle” and “Chemist Brand Germ Troll” were lawfully adopted. They contended that “Doctor” is a laudatory and generic term widely used in the industry and cannot be monopolized, especially since their mark is registered as “Doctor Hazel’s,” which introduces a distinctive element.
The Court held that under Section 28(3) of the Trade Marks Act, where two parties hold valid trademark registrations, an infringement claim cannot succeed unless one registration is first rectified. In this case, both parties had registered marks, and therefore, no infringement could be established.
Further, the plaintiff’s registration was for a composite device mark and not for the standalone word “Doctor.” Given its generic character and extensive presence in Class 5 registrations, the Court ruled that exclusive rights over the term were not sustainable.
On examining allegations of passing off and copyright infringement, the Court found significant differences in trade dress, color schemes, and design between the two brands. These distinctions, in its view, removed any likelihood of consumer confusion. Consequently, both passing-off and copyright infringement claims were rejected.
As the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the defendants had conducted any commercial transactions within Delhi, the Court concluded that territorial jurisdiction was not established and returned the suit. This judgment underscores that in the context of e-commerce and online visibility, courts will demand concrete evidence of targeted commercial 1activity within their jurisdiction and will not accept passive web presence as sufficient grounds to confer jurisdiction.
The post Delhi High Court rules passive web presence doesn’t confer jurisdiction in IP cases appeared first on India Legal.