Delhi High Court Holds Regoshin Healthcare’s Website And Online Listings Sufficient To Confer Territorial Jurisdiction
Introduction
The Delhi High Court has refused to return a trademark infringement and passing off suit filed by Ravinder Singh against Regoshin Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. and others, holding that the defendants’ online presence and product listings were sufficient at the threshold stage to permit the suit to proceed in Delhi.
Justice Jyoti Singh held that while considering an objection relating to territorial jurisdiction at the preliminary stage, the Court must proceed on the basis that the averments in the plaint are true and must be accepted as “the gospel truth.”
Factual Background
Ravinder Singh, trading under the name “Royal International,” instituted a suit seeking permanent injunction against Regoshin Healthcare and other entities for alleged infringement of his registered trademarks “ROYAL” and “ROYU.” He alleged that the defendants were using deceptively similar marks, including “Regoshin,” in relation to dietary supplements, pharmaceuticals, medicinal products, and allied goods. According to Singh, the defendants were jointly engaged in manufacturing, marketing, and selling counterfeit goods under the impugned marks, thereby harming his goodwill and brand reputation.
Procedural Background
The defendants filed an application seeking return of the plaint on the ground that Delhi courts lacked territorial jurisdiction. They argued that Singh carried on business principally from Amritsar, Punjab, and that the defendants themselves did not carry on business in Delhi. The defendants further contended that they did not possess a drug licence permitting sale of products in Delhi and argued that allegations regarding sale or threat of sale in Delhi amounted to “clever drafting.” The matter came before the Delhi High Court for determination of the territorial jurisdiction objection at the threshold stage
Issues
1. Whether the Delhi High Court possessed territorial jurisdiction to entertain the trademark infringement and passing off suit.
2. Whether online presence and accessibility of a website in Delhi could constitute part of the cause of action.
3. Whether listings on third-party platforms such as IndiaMart and Justdial could support territorial jurisdiction.
4. Whether the absence of a Delhi drug licence could defeat jurisdiction at the preliminary stage.
Contentions of the Parties
Singh argued that Regoshin Healthcare maintained a dedicated website accessible in Delhi, displaying its Delhi office address, contact details, visitation hours, and communication channels.
He further relied on listings of the impugned products on platforms such as IndiaMart and Justdial, contending that consumers in Delhi could access the products and establish contact with the defendants through these platforms.
According to Singh, these activities constituted sufficient targeting of customers within Delhi and gave rise to part of the cause of action.
The defendants contended that Delhi courts lacked territorial jurisdiction because Singh’s principal place of business was situated in Amritsar.
They argued that they neither carried on business in Delhi nor possessed drug licences authorising sales within Delhi. According to them, the allegation of possible sales in Delhi was merely an attempt at “clever drafting” to invoke Delhi jurisdiction.
Reasoning and Analysis
The High Court observed that there was prima facie substance in the contention that Singh could not invoke jurisdiction merely on the basis of his own place of business, as available documents indicated that his business operated from Amritsar. However, the Court clarified that this did not conclude the jurisdictional inquiry. It held that the suit could still proceed if part of the cause of action arose in Delhi.
Justice Singh noted that the plaint specifically pleaded that Regoshin Healthcare maintained a website accessible in Delhi, containing product details, contact information, and a Delhi office address. The Court also took note of product listings on IndiaMart and Justdial. At the threshold stage, the Court held, all averments in the plaint must be assumed to be true and treated as “the gospel truth.”
The Court further observed that the issue regarding the defendants’ lack of a Delhi drug licence constituted a defence that could not be conclusively examined at the preliminary stage.
Relying on earlier precedents, the Court held that targeting of customers need not always involve aggressive marketing activity. In an appropriate case, the mere accessibility of a website in a particular geographical region, coupled with the ability of customers there to interact with it, could suffice.
The Court also held that whether the defendants’ website was merely passive or actively facilitated commercial transactions was a mixed question of law and fact requiring evidence.
Similarly, the Court observed that third-party platform listings could not at this stage be dismissed as mere directory entries, especially when the pleadings indicated that such platforms facilitated advertisement and promotion of products to prospective customers.
Decision
The Delhi High Court dismissed the application seeking return of the plaint and permitted the trademark infringement and passing off suit to proceed in Delhi. However, the Court clarified that the defendants would remain at liberty to raise the objection regarding territorial jurisdiction at subsequent stages of the proceedings after evidence is led. The matter has been listed for further hearing on 27 August 2026.
In this case the appellant was represented by Advocates Rajeshwari H. and Anshima Puri.