This case explores the intersection of intellectual property rights and the jurisdiction of courts in online disputes. Specifically, it addresses whether the hosting of a website accessible in a particular jurisdiction gives rise to territorial jurisdiction in cases of passing off or trademark infringement.

Background: The plaintiff, Banyan Tree Holding (P) Limited, operates in the hospitality sector and has used the trademark "Banyan Tree" and related devices internationally since 1994. The dispute arose when the defendants initiated a real estate project named "Banyan Tree Retreat" in Hyderabad, with promotional materials and a website allegedly infringing on the plaintiff's goodwill and reputation. The plaintiff, a Singapore-based company, claimed the defendants' actions constituted passing off. The primary issue was whether the Delhi High Court could assert jurisdiction over the case based on the defendants' website's accessibility in Delhi.

• Parties Involved:
  • The plaintiff is a Singapore-registered company.
  • The defendants, including A. Murali Krishna Reddy, are based in Hyderabad.
     
• Nature of Dispute:
  • The plaintiff alleged passing off by the defendants using a deceptively similar name and logo for their project.
     
• Jurisdictional Challenge:
  • The plaintiff argued that the Delhi High Court had jurisdiction as the defendants' website was accessible in Delhi and solicited business there.
     
• Issues Raised:
  • Whether the Delhi High Court had territorial jurisdiction under Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) based on the accessibility of the defendants' website in Delhi.
  • Whether the defendants' use of the mark amounted to passing off.
  • To what extent can website interactivity determine jurisdiction in online disputes.
     
• Plaintiff's Submissions:
  • Claimed exclusive rights to the "Banyan Tree" mark and device through extensive international use and goodwill.
  • Asserted jurisdiction under Section 20(c) CPC, stating the defendants' website actively solicited business from Delhi residents.
  • Argued that the website was interactive, enabling inquiries and feedback from potential customers in Delhi.
     
• Defendants' Submissions:
  • Denied jurisdiction, stating neither the parties nor the alleged passing off activities occurred in Delhi.
  • Contended that their website was passive and did not specifically target Delhi customers.
  • Highlighted that their business operations and target audience were confined to Hyderabad.
     
• Judgments Referred:
  • Casio India Co. Ltd. vs. Ashita Tele Systems Pvt. Ltd. (2003): Established that mere website accessibility does not suffice to confer jurisdiction.
  • India TV Independent News Service vs. India Broadcast Live LLC (2007): Recognized that interactivity and targeting are essential for establishing jurisdiction.
  • Zippo Manufacturing Co. vs. Zippo Dot Com (USA): Introduced a sliding scale test for website interactivity to determine jurisdiction.
  • Dow Jones & Co. Inc. vs. Gutnick (Australia): Applied the effects test to hold jurisdiction where the plaintiff suffered harm.
     
• Reasoning of the Judges:
  • Website Accessibility and Jurisdiction:
    • Distinguished between "passive," "interactive," and "targeted" websites.
    • Held that mere accessibility of a website in Delhi does not suffice to establish jurisdiction.
    • The plaintiff must show that the website specifically targeted Delhi residents for business.
       
  • Burden of Proof on the Plaintiff:
    • The plaintiff must demonstrate that the defendant engaged in commercial activities in the forum state, causing harm or injury within that jurisdiction.
       
  • Use of Trap Orders:
    • Cautioned against reliance on "trap transactions" unless conducted fairly and transparently.
    • Emphasized that evidence of purposeful targeting and actual harm is essential to substantiate jurisdiction.
       

Decision: The court held that the plaintiff failed to prove that the defendants specifically targeted Delhi residents or conducted business through their website in Delhi. Consequently, the Delhi High Court lacked territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit.

Case Title: Banyan Tree Holding (P) Limited vs A. Murali Krishna Reddy & Anr.
Date of Order: 23 November 2009
Case No.: CS(OS) No. 894/2008
Court: High Court of Delhi
Judges: Chief Justice and Justice S. Muralidhar

Disclaimer: The information shared here is intended to serve the public interest by offering insights and perspectives. However, readers are advised to exercise their own discretion when interpreting and applying this information. The content herein is subjective and may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.

Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor - Patent and Trademark Attorney
Email: [email protected], Ph no: 9990389539