For more intellectual property updates follow our WHATSAPP CHANNEL and SUNS LEGAL | LinkedIn
Introduction
On 24 November 2025, the High Court of Delhi delivered its judgment in Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. v. Artura Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. (CS(COMM) 1038/2024). The matter arose from a trademark infringement suit filed by Sun Pharma against Artura Pharmaceuticals, but the immediate issue before the Court was whether it had territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The Defendant sought the return of the Plaint under Order VII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, read with Section 151 CPC, contending that no part of the cause of action had arisen in Delhi.
The judgment is significant as it addresses how courts determine jurisdiction in trademark disputes involving internet-based activities, where questions of accessibility, interactivity, and purposeful targeting of consumers come into play.
Fact of the Case
Sun Pharma, the Plaintiff, is the registered proprietor of the trademarks PEPFIZ and REVITAL. It alleged that Artura Pharmaceuticals was using deceptively similar marks, PEPFIX and NEOVITAL, amounting to infringement, passing off, and unfair competition. On 21 November 2024, the Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction restraining Artura from selling, advertising, or dealing in goods under the impugned marks.
Subsequently, Artura filed an application under Order VII Rule 10 CPC, read with Section 151 CPC, seeking return of the Plaint for lack of territorial jurisdiction. The Defendant argued that its registered office was in Chennai, its manufacturing facility was in Andhra Pradesh, and its products were manufactured solely for export. It contended that no sale or transaction had occurred in Delhi, and therefore, the Delhi High Court lacked jurisdiction.
Argument in Favour
Sun Pharma argued that the Delhi High Court had jurisdiction because part of the cause of action arose in Delhi. It relied on the principle of demurrer, under which all averments in the Plaint must be assumed true at the stage of Order VII Rule 10 CPC.
The Plaintiff pointed to the Defendant’s website, which contained a “Contact Us” page inviting users to write for services. This, it argued, amounted to purposeful targeting of consumers in Delhi. The website also hosted brochures mentioning the impugned marks. In addition, the mark NEOVITAL was listed on a third-party aggregator site, pharmahopers.com, which explicitly declared its purpose as facilitating trade opportunities in the pharmaceutical industry and included an interactive enquiry form.
Sun Pharma further contended that since its registered office was in Delhi, it had the right to file the suit there, even though it had a subordinate office in Telangana. It also argued that confusion and deception caused by the impugned marks were injuring its business in Delhi, thereby giving rise to jurisdiction under Section 20 CPC.
In support of its submissions, Sun Pharma relied on Exphar SA v. Eupharma Laboratories Ltd., (2004) 3 SCC 688, where the Supreme Court held that objections to jurisdiction raised by demurrer must proceed on the assumption that the Plaintiff’s facts are true. It also cited RSPL Ltd. v. Mukesh Sharma, 2016 SCC OnLine Del 4285, which reiterated that objections under Order VII Rule 10 CPC must be decided on the basis of plaint averments. The Plaintiff referred to Millennium & Copthorne International Ltd. v. Aryans Plaza Services Pvt. Ltd., 2018 SCC OnLine Del 8260, where the Court held that in trademark suits, the cause of action arises where confusion or deception occurs. Reliance was also placed on Banyan Tree Holding (P) Ltd. v. A. Murali Krishna Reddy, 2009 SCC OnLine Del 3780, which established the “sliding scale test” and “effects test” for internet jurisdiction, and on Tata Sons P. Ltd. v. Hakunamatata Tata Founders, 2022 SCC OnLine Del 2968, where the Court observed that mere accessibility of a website in a forum can confer jurisdiction.
Argument Against
Artura Pharmaceuticals argued that the Delhi High Court lacked jurisdiction. It emphasized that its registered office was in Chennai and its manufacturing facility in Andhra Pradesh. The products under the impugned marks were manufactured only for export, and there was no sale in India.
The Defendant contended that its website was passive, not interactive, and that the “Contact Us” page was meant only for career-related or general enquiries, not for commercial transactions. There was no payment gateway or facility to purchase products online. Artura also argued that Sun Pharma had failed to produce any sales invoices or proof of delivery of products in Delhi. As for the listing on pharmahopers.com, the Defendant maintained that it was merely a directory of manufacturers and exporters, not an e-commerce portal.
In support of its submissions, Artura relied on Banyan Tree Holding (P) Ltd. v. A. Murali Krishna Reddy, 2009 SCC OnLine Del 3780, where the Court held that jurisdiction does not arise merely because a website is accessible in the forum state; there must be evidence of targeting and commercial transactions. It also cited Federal Express Corp. v. Fedex Securities Ltd., 2018 (74) PTC 205 (Del) (DB), where the Court held that mere reference to a website without proof of transactions does not confer jurisdiction. Finally, it referred to Kohinoor Seed Fields India Pvt. Ltd. v. Veda Seed Sciences Pvt. Ltd., 2025 SCC OnLine Del 2404, where the Court returned the plaint for lack of jurisdiction because the plaintiff had failed to show any communication or order placed through the defendant’s listing on IndiaMart.
Court’s Decision
The Delhi High Court dismissed the Defendant’s application. It held that objections to jurisdiction under Order VII Rule 10 CPC must be decided by demurrer, meaning that all facts pleaded in the Plaint must be assumed true. Following Exphar SA v. Eupharma Laboratories Ltd., the Court emphasized that jurisdictional objections can succeed only if, even on those assumed facts, the Court lacks jurisdiction as a matter of law.
The Court explained that Section 20 CPC governs territorial jurisdiction. Jurisdiction arises where the wrong occurred or where the cause of action, wholly or partly, arose. In trademark suits, this includes places where confusion or deception occurs or injury is caused to the plaintiff. The Court noted that Sun Pharma had pleaded that the Defendant’s website and third-party listing were accessible in Delhi, containing brochures and enquiry forms, and created the likelihood of confusion among Delhi consumers. These averments, assumed to be true at this stage, were sufficient to establish prima facie jurisdiction.
The Court applied the principles of internet jurisdiction laid down in Banyan Tree Holding (P) Ltd., which require examining the nature and extent of online activities to determine if they amount to “purposeful availment” of the forum. It observed that whether the Defendant’s website was sufficiently interactive, whether transactions occurred, and whether the business was export-only were disputed factual questions. Such issues could not be resolved at the threshold stage and required examination at trial. The Court also referred to Tata Sons P. Ltd. v. Hakunamatata Tata Founders, where it was held that targeting need not be aggressive; mere accessibility of a website in a geography can confer jurisdiction.
Ultimately, the Court held that the Defendant’s jurisdictional objection involved disputed questions of fact that could not be summarily resolved. The Plaintiff’s averments established prima facie jurisdiction in Delhi, and the suit was allowed to proceed to trial. The Defendant’s right to raise the issue of jurisdiction at trial was reserved, and the Court directed that it would be framed and decided as a preliminary issue after both parties had the opportunity to lead evidence.
Conclusion
The judgment of the Delhi High Court in Sun Pharmaceutical v. Artura Pharmaceuticals highlights the evolving principles of territorial jurisdiction in the context of internet-based trademark disputes. By applying the principle of demurrer, the Court reaffirmed that objections under Order VII Rule 10 CPC must be decided on the basis of plaint averments, not disputed facts. It also clarified that Section 20 CPC allows jurisdiction where confusion or deception occurs, and that online presence, even through websites and directory listings, can give rise to jurisdiction if it creates the likelihood of consumer confusion.
The Court’s reliance on the “sliding scale test” and “effects test” from Banyan Tree Holding demonstrates the judiciary’s recognition of the complexities of internet commerce. The decision makes clear that whether a website is sufficiently interactive or whether transactions have occurred are questions of fact that must be examined at trial, not at the threshold stage.
