Jurisdiction in the Digital Era: How Indian Courts are Defining Online Trademark Disputes in the Age of E-Commerce

Introduction

In today’s digital economy, where e-commerce and online transactions transcend borders, the concept of territorial jurisdiction has become increasingly complex. The proliferation of websites and online marketplaces has blurred geographical boundaries, raising intricate legal questions particularly in the realm of intellectual property law and online trademark disputes.

A recurring issue before Indian courts is whether mere accessibility of a website within a court’s territorial limits is sufficient to confer jurisdiction. As online commercial activities expand, the judiciary has been tasked with balancing the global reach of the internet against the localized nature of legal remedies.

Evolving Jurisprudence in the Digital Landscape

The question of jurisdiction in online disputes was first substantively addressed by the Delhi High Court in the landmark case of Banyan Tree Holding (P) Limited v. A. Murali Krishna Reddy[1] (2009).

The Court examined whether a passing-off action could be maintained in a forum where the defendant neither resides nor carries on business, solely on the basis that its website was accessible there. The judgment established guiding principles that have since become foundational to India’s approach to internet jurisdiction.

The Court held that mere accessibility of a website is not sufficient to confer jurisdiction. Instead, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the defendant purposefully directed its activities toward consumers within the forum and that such activities resulted in commercial transactions or harm within that jurisdiction.

Jurisdiction and the Nature of Websites: Static vs. Interactive

One of the defining factors in determining jurisdiction over online disputes is the nature of the website specifically, the degree of interactivity it offers.

Indian courts have distinguished between:

• Static Websites: Those that merely provide information, with no capacity for user engagement or transactions.
• Interactive Websites: Those that allow two-way communication, user registration, or commercial transactions.

The Delhi High Court has consistently ruled that jurisdiction cannot be claimed merely because a website is accessible within the court’s territory. Instead, it must be shown that:

1. The website was interactive, targeting consumers within the jurisdiction; and
2. There was an intention to conclude commercial transactions with users from that region.

In India TV Independent News Service Pvt. Ltd. v. India Broadcast Live LLC (2007)[2], the Court clarified that the level of interactivity plays a crucial role — a passive website does not confer jurisdiction, but an active one that enables commercial dealings might.

Similarly, in Banyan Tree Holding[3], it was reaffirmed that targeted activities towards consumers in a specific jurisdiction, and not mere online presence, form the basis for a valid claim of jurisdiction.

Balancing Accessibility with Intent

The courts have adopted a cautious and balanced approach ensuring that businesses are not unduly dragged into distant jurisdictions simply because their websites are globally accessible.

For instance, in Impressario Entertainment & Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. v. S&D Hospitality (2017), the Court held that mere hosting of a web page on an interactive site does not suffice unless the plaintiff demonstrates that the defendant engaged in commercial activities or concluded transactions within the jurisdiction.

This approach aligns with the international doctrine of “purposeful availment”, where a defendant must have intentionally directed business or marketing activities toward a forum for jurisdiction to be established. This doctrine ensures that jurisdictional claims are not based merely on digital presence but on conscious engagement and commercial impact.

Conclusion

Indian jurisprudence on online jurisdiction in trademark and e-commerce disputes has evolved to reflect the realities of the digital age while maintaining the principles of fairness and territoriality.

The consistent judicial view is clear: mere accessibility of a website does not confer jurisdiction. To establish jurisdiction, it must be demonstrated that:

• The defendant targeted consumers in the forum state;
• The website was interactive and transactional; and
• The defendant derived commercial benefit or caused harm within that jurisdiction.

As digital trade and e-commerce continue to expand, these judicial principles will play a critical role in shaping India’s legal response to cyber jurisdiction, online IP protection, and digital commerce regulation. The courts’ evolving stance reflects a pragmatic balance between promoting innovation in digital business and ensuring that legal remedies remain equitable and territorially grounded.

[1] Banyan Tree Holding (P) Limited v. A. Murali Krishna Reddy and Anr, Delhi High Court

[2] India TV) Independent News Service Pvt. Limited v. India Broadcast Live LLC And Ors, 2007 (35) PTC 177 (Del.)

[3] Banyan Tree Holding (P) Limited v. A. Murali Krishna Reddy and Anr, Delhi High Court