Delhi High Court Holds Justdial Presence Adequate to Invoke Territorial Jurisdiction in Trademark Proceedings

In Astral Ltd. v. M/s Astral Marketing Syndicate & Anr., CS (COMM) 294/2024, the Delhi High Court addressed whether an interactive listing on a third-party platform such as Justdial can confer territorial jurisdiction in an internet-based trademark dispute. The Court dismissed an application seeking rejection of the plaint for lack of territorial jurisdiction.

Summary

The Court held that, at the stage of considering an objection under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the averments in the plaint must be accepted as true.

It further observed that an interactive listing on a third-party platform such as Justdial, through which consumers can access product catalogues, initiate enquiries, and contact the Defendant, is sufficient to prima facie confer territorial jurisdiction in an internet-based trademark dispute.

The Court also held that the Plaintiff’s subordinate office in Delhi constituted an additional basis for invoking the Court’s jurisdiction under Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.

Facts of the Case

The Plaintiff, Astral Ltd., instituted a suit for trademark infringement and passing off against M/s Astral Marketing Syndicate and another in relation to the Defendants’ use of the mark “ASTRAL”.

The Plaintiff asserted that the Defendants were advertising and offering their products through an interactive listing on the Justdial platform, which was accessible to customers across India, including Delhi. According to the Plaintiff, consumers in Delhi could access the Defendants’ catalogue, communicate with them through the platform, and place enquiries or orders, thereby giving rise to a part of the cause of action within the territorial jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court.

The Defendants filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that the Delhi High Court lacked territorial jurisdiction. They contended that both parties had their principal places of business in Ahmedabad, that the Defendants carried on business exclusively from Ahmedabad, and that no actual sale or commercial transaction involving the alleged infringing goods had taken place in Delhi.

According to the Defendants, the mere presence of a Justdial advertisement or directory listing was insufficient to confer jurisdiction.

The Plaintiff opposed the application, submitting that the Justdial listing was interactive in nature and enabled customers in Delhi to access the Defendants’ products, initiate communications and place enquiries. The Plaintiff also relied upon the existence of its subordinate office in Delhi to invoke the jurisdiction of the Court under Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act read with Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Issue before the Court

Whether the Delhi High Court possessed territorial jurisdiction to entertain the trademark infringement and passing off suit on the basis of the Defendants’ interactive Justdial listing accessible in Delhi and the Plaintiff’s subordinate office in Delhi, despite both parties having their principal places of business in Ahmedabad.

Findings of the Court

The Demurrer Principle and Plaint Averments

The Court reiterated that while considering an application challenging territorial jurisdiction at the threshold stage, the averments contained in the plaint must be accepted as true under the demurrer principle. The Plaintiff was therefore not required to establish its jurisdictional assertions through evidence at this preliminary stage.

Interactive Justdial Listing as a Jurisdictional Nexus

The Court observed that, in trademark infringement and passing off actions, the cause of action arises where the alleged confusion or deception occurs or where the Plaintiff suffers injury.

Referring to its earlier decisions in Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. v. Artura Pharmaceuticals (P) Ltd., Ravinder Singh v. Regoshin Healthcare (P) Ltd., and Tata Sons P. Ltd. v. Hakunamatata Tata Founders, the Court held that an interactive third-party platform such as Justdial may confer territorial jurisdiction where it enables consumers to:

• Access product information
• Download catalogues
• Initiate chats or enquiries
• Contact the Defendant for commercial purposes

The Court found that the Plaintiff had specifically pleaded that the Defendants’ products were advertised and promoted through an interactive Justdial listing accessible to consumers in Delhi. The listing enabled prospective customers to view the product catalogue, communicate with the Defendants and submit enquiries, thereby facilitating commercial transactions.

At the preliminary stage, these pleadings were sufficient to establish that part of the cause of action had arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court.

Plaintiff’s Subordinate Office and Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act

The Court further held that the Plaintiff’s subordinate office in Delhi provided an independent basis for invoking jurisdiction under Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act.

Relying upon its earlier decision in Astral Ltd. v. Ajay Enterprises, the Court clarified that where part of the cause of action arises both at the place of the Plaintiff’s principal office and at the place of its subordinate office, the Plaintiff may institute the suit before either court.

The Court also rejected the Defendants’ contention that the Plaintiff’s failure to expressly invoke Section 134 in the plaint defeated jurisdiction, observing that the omission to cite a statutory provision does not extinguish jurisdiction that otherwise exists in law.

Held

The Delhi High Court dismissed the Defendants’ application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It held that the plaint disclosed sufficient facts to prima facie establish territorial jurisdiction, having regard to the Defendants’ interactive Justdial listing accessible in Delhi and the Plaintiff’s subordinate office within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court.

However, the Court clarified that the Defendants remained at liberty to raise the issue of territorial jurisdiction during trial, where it would be decided on the basis of evidence.

Conclusion

The judgment reinforces the evolving principles governing territorial jurisdiction in internet-based trademark disputes by recognising that interactive third-party platforms such as Justdial may constitute a sufficient nexus with a forum where consumers can access product information and initiate commercial interactions.

The decision also reiterates the following key principles:

• Jurisdictional objections under Order VII Rule 11 are to be determined on the basis of the pleadings alone.
• The existence of a subordinate office, coupled with a part of the cause of action arising within the forum, enables a trademark proprietor to invoke jurisdiction under Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act.

The ruling reflects the Delhi High Court’s continued liberal approach towards protecting trademark owners in the context of online commercial activity.

Last Updated on 8 July, 2026