--- title: "Delhi High Court Holds Website Accessibility and Online Commercial Features Sufficient to Sustain Jurisdictional Plea at Preliminary Stage" date: 2026-06-13 author: "King Stubb & Kasiva" url: https://ksandk.com/newsletter/territorial-jurisdiction-online-trademark-infringement/ --- # Delhi High Court Holds Website Accessibility and Online Commercial Features Sufficient to Sustain Jurisdictional Plea at Preliminary Stage Posted On - 13 June, 2026 • By - King Stubb & Kasiva ## Summary  In the significant case of *Ravinder Singh vs. Regoshin Healthcare Pvt Ltd & Ors.* [CS(COMM) 383/2025], on territorial jurisdiction in online trademark infringement actions, the Delhi High Court held that the presence of a defendant’s website featuring product listings and a “Contact Us” page accessible to consumers in Delhi may be sufficient, at the preliminary stage, to confer jurisdiction on the Court. Rejecting an application for return of plaint under Order VII Rule 10 CPC, the Court reiterated that jurisdictional objections raised at the threshold must be examined on a demurrer, accepting all averments in the plaint as true.  ## Facts of the Case  The plaintiff instituted a trademark infringement and passing off suit against the defendants in relation to the use of allegedly deceptive pharmaceutical trademarks. The plaintiff contended that the defendants were manufacturing, marketing, and promoting pharmaceutical products under impugned marks that were deceptively similar to its registered trademarks. It was further alleged that the defendants were offering and promoting these products through their own website as well as third-party platforms such as IndiaMart and Justdial.  The defendants sought return of the plaint under Order VII Rule 10 CPC, arguing that the Delhi High Court lacked territorial jurisdiction. They submitted that they did not possess a drug licence permitting sales in Delhi and, therefore, no commercial transaction could take place within the territory of Delhi. According to them, the mere existence of a registered office in Delhi or a website accessible in Delhi could not confer jurisdiction.  The plaintiff, on the other hand, relied on the defendants’ website, product listings, “Contact Us” page, and listings on third-party online platforms to contend that the defendants were actively soliciting business and targeting consumers in Delhi, thereby giving rise to a part of the cause of action within the jurisdiction of the Court.  ## Issue before the Court  Whether the Delhi High Court possessed territorial jurisdiction to entertain a trademark infringement and passing off suit where the defendants’ products were accessible online through websites and third-party platforms, and where the defendants maintained a website containing a “Contact Us” page accessible to consumers in Delhi.  ## Findings of the Court  The Court reiterated the settled principle that an application seeking return of plaint under Order VII Rule 10 CPC must be decided solely on the basis of the averments contained in the plaint and accompanying documents. At this stage, all pleaded facts are required to be accepted as true, and the defendant’s defence cannot be considered.  Examining the plaint, the Court noted that the plaintiff had specifically pleaded that the defendants maintained a dedicated website displaying the impugned products and containing a “Contact Us” page through which potential customers could interact with them. The plaintiff had also placed on record screenshots showing that the website displayed product information, contact details, business coordinates, and other commercial touchpoints.  Relying on recent decisions concerning internet-based trademark disputes, The Court held that, when viewed together with product listings, commercial information, and allegations of online solicitation, the existence of a Contact Us page could not be dismissed as a purely passive online feature at the threshold stage. Whether such online interfaces ultimately resulted in commercial transactions or constituted purposeful targeting of consumers was a matter requiring evidence and could only be determined at trial.  The Court further observed that the defendants’ products were also listed on third-party platforms such as IndiaMart and Justdial, which facilitated consumer interaction and business enquiries. Such allegations, if accepted as true for the purposes of Order VII Rule 10 CPC, were sufficient to establish a prima facie nexus with the forum and warranted examination at trial.  Importantly, the Court held that the question of territorial jurisdiction in internet-based disputes often involves mixed questions of law and fact. Therefore, where the plaint contains specific averments regarding website accessibility, product promotion, and consumer interaction within a particular jurisdiction, the suit ought not to be rejected at the preliminary stage.  ## Held  The Delhi High Court dismissed the defendants’ application seeking return of the plaint under Order VII Rule 10 CPC. The Court held that the averments in the plaint, including the defendants’ online presence, product listings, “Contact Us” page, and listings on third-party websites accessible in Delhi, were sufficient to justify the continuation of the suit before the Delhi High Court at the threshold stage, leaving the issue of territorial jurisdiction open for determination after evidence.  ## Conclusion  The decision reinforces the evolving approach of Indian courts towards territorial jurisdiction in internet-based intellectual property disputes. It underscores that businesses maintaining websites with commercial features, product listings, and customer interaction mechanisms may face jurisdictional scrutiny in forums where such online activities are alleged to target consumers or contribute to the cause of action. The ruling further highlights that questions concerning the extent of website interactivity and actual commercial targeting are ordinarily matters for trial and not for summary adjudication at the threshold stage.  *Last Updated on 13 June, 2026* --- ## Office Locations - [New Delhi](https://ksandk.com/locations/top-corporate-law-firm-in-delhi/) (HQ): +91-11-41318190 | info@ksandk.com - [Mumbai](https://ksandk.com/locations/top-corporate-law-firm-in-mumbai/): 3 offices (Nariman Point, Lower Parel, Andheri) | mumbai@ksandk.com - [Bangalore](https://ksandk.com/locations/top-corporate-law-firm-in-bangalore/): bangalore@ksandk.com - [Chennai](https://ksandk.com/locations/chennai/): chennai@ksandk.com - [Hyderabad](https://ksandk.com/locations/hyderabad/): hyderabad@ksandk.com - [Pune](https://ksandk.com/locations/pune/): pune@ksandk.com - [Kochi](https://ksandk.com/locations/kochi/): kochi@ksandk.com ## Contact - [Contact Page](https://ksandk.com/contact-us/) - General: info@ksandk.com | +91-11-41318190 - WhatsApp: +91-7428567444 - [Privacy Statement](https://ksandk.com/privacy-statement/) - [Terms of Use](https://ksandk.com/terms-of-use/)