Demurrer-Based Threshold for Territorial Jurisdiction in Internet Trade Mark Suits: Commentary on Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. v. Artura Pharmaceuticals P. Ltd.

Demurrer-Based Threshold for Territorial Jurisdiction in Internet Trade Mark Suits: A Commentary on Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. v. Artura Pharmaceuticals P. Ltd.

1. Introduction

The decision of the Delhi High Court in Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. v. Artura Pharmaceuticals P. Ltd., 2025 DHC 10348 (CS(COMM) 1038/2024, decided on 24 November 2025 by Tejas Karia, J.), is a significant addition to the jurisprudence on territorial jurisdiction in internet-based trade mark disputes.

The judgment does not decide the core infringement dispute between the parties. Instead, it addresses a preliminary but crucial procedural issue: whether the plaint should be returned under Order VII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) for lack of territorial jurisdiction, in a case where the alleged infringer operates a website with a “Contact Us” page and product brochure downloads, and where its products are listed on a third-party online directory accessible in Delhi.

The Court’s ruling is particularly important for three reasons:

  • It clarifies how objections to territorial jurisdiction must be tested at the threshold stage—on a demurrer, assuming the plaint’s averments to be true.
  • It explains the limited role of the “sliding scale” and “effects” tests (from Banyan Tree) at the Order VII Rule 10 stage in internet disputes.
  • It holds that a “Contact Us” page combined with product brochures and aggregator listings can be enough, at the pleading stage, to allow the suit to proceed, leaving the question of territorial jurisdiction to be decided as a preliminary issue after evidence.

The decision thus significantly affects how plaintiffs and defendants should strategize in online intellectual property litigation, especially where defendants claim to be “export only” entities and deny domestic market activity.

2. Factual and Procedural Background

2.1 Parties and Marks

The plaintiff, Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd., is a well-known pharmaceutical company. It owns registered trade marks including:

  • PEPFIZ
  • REVITAL

The defendant, Artura Pharmaceuticals P. Ltd., is based in Chennai (registered office) with manufacturing facilities in Andhra Pradesh. It uses the allegedly infringing marks:

  • PEPFIX – alleged to be deceptively similar to PEPFIZ
  • NEOVITAL – alleged to be deceptively similar to REVITAL

Sun Pharma filed a commercial suit in the Delhi High Court seeking:

  • Permanent injunction for trade mark infringement
  • Passing off
  • Unfair competition
  • Damages / rendition of accounts
  • Delivery up of infringing goods

On 21 November 2024, the Court granted an ex parte ad-interim injunction restraining Artura and those acting on its behalf from using PEPFIX and NEOVITAL (or deceptively similar marks) in relation to their goods.

2.2 Defendant’s Objection: Lack of Territorial Jurisdiction

Artura then filed an application (I.A. 17275/2025) under Order VII Rule 10 read with Section 151 CPC seeking return of the plaint for want of territorial jurisdiction. The core of the defendant’s case was:

  • Its registered office is in Chennai, and its manufacturing facility is in Andhra Pradesh.
  • It manufactures the impugned products only for export; there is no sale in India.
  • It does not have any place of business in Delhi and does not offer for sale the impugned products within Delhi’s territorial jurisdiction.
  • Its website www.arturapharma.com is not an interactive website in the sense required by Banyan Tree; it has only a “Contact Us” form, with no payment gateway or online ordering facility.
  • The third-party site www.pharmahopers.com (“Subject Website”) is merely a directory, not an e-commerce portal, and no purchase can be made from it.

2.3 Plaintiff’s Jurisdictional Pleadings

In paragraph 37 of the plaint, Sun Pharma invoked Section 20 CPC and pleaded that:

  • The defendant is selling its products in Delhi.
  • The defendant is carrying on business in Delhi through:
    • its own website: www.arturapharma.com (“Impugned Website”), and
    • third-party website: www.pharmahopers.com.
  • The websites are accessible to residents of Delhi and contain a “Contact Us” section through which:
    • the defendant can be contacted to enquire about and place orders for products under the impugned marks; and
    • this accessibility is causing injury to the plaintiff in Delhi.
  • Customers within Delhi are allegedly being confused and misled into procuring the defendant’s medicines, causing injury to the plaintiff.

In addition, the plaintiff relied on:

  • A “Contact Us” page on Artura’s website inviting users to “write to us” to render services.
  • A Nutritional Supplement Brochure downloadable from the Impugned Website, mentioning the impugned marks.
  • A screenshot from pharmahopers.com showing a listing for NEOVITAL, with an interactive enquiry form soliciting product requirements.

Sun Pharma also argued that since part of the cause of action arose in Delhi and its registered office is in Delhi, it was entitled to file the suit in Delhi even though it has a subordinate office elsewhere.

3. Issues Before the Court

The core legal issue was:

Whether, at the stage of an application under Order VII Rule 10 CPC, the presence of a “Contact Us” page and online product-related content on the defendant’s website, along with a listing on a third-party directory site accessible in Delhi, is sufficient – assuming the plaintiff’s pleadings to be true – to confer prima facie territorial jurisdiction on the Delhi High Court in an internet-based trade mark infringement and passing off suit.

This main question breaks down into several sub-issues:

  • What is the standard of scrutiny under Order VII Rule 10 CPC when jurisdiction is challenged—must the Court take the plaint’s averments as true (demurrer) or assess evidence?
  • How should the Banyan Tree “sliding scale” and “effects” tests be applied at the preliminary stage of an internet-related IP dispute?
  • Can a “Contact Us” page with an invitation to “write to us… and render our services”, combined with downloadable brochures and a third-party listing with an enquiry form, amount to purposeful availment of Delhi as a forum?
  • Is production of a specific sales invoice or purchase instance within Delhi mandatory at the Order VII Rule 10 stage, or can such issues be reserved for trial?
  • Is the defendant’s assertion of being an “export-only” manufacturer a pure question of law or a factual defence requiring evidence?

4. Summary of the Judgment

The Court dismissed the defendant’s application under Order VII Rule 10 and refused to return the plaint. The key holdings can be distilled as follows:

  1. Demurrer Principle Applied: At the Order VII Rule 10 stage, all averments in the plaint must be assumed to be true. The Court cannot weigh evidence or demand proof; it must ask only whether, even on the plaint's version, it lacks jurisdiction as a matter of law.
  2. Internet Jurisdiction is a Mixed Question of Law and Fact: Whether the defendant’s website is “passive”, “passive plus”, or “interactive”, and whether third-party listings are mere directories or commercial platforms, depends on factual examination and cannot be conclusively determined at the threshold.
  3. “Contact Us” Page and Online Brochure as Prima Facie Purposeful Availment: A “Contact Us” page inviting users to “write to us” to render services, together with a brochure mentioning the impugned marks available on the website, and a third-party interactive listing, are sufficient at the pleading stage to show that the defendant purposefully availed itself of the Delhi market and that part of the cause of action arose in Delhi.
  4. No Requirement of Proving Actual Transactions at This Stage: The absence of a sales invoice or specific transaction in Delhi is not fatal at the Order VII Rule 10 stage, given the plaintiff’s clear pleadings that the website and listings are accessible in Delhi and cause confusion and injury there.
  5. Export-Only Defence Deferred to Trial: The defendant’s plea that it manufactures solely for export, and that no sales are made in India, raises disputed questions of fact which can be resolved only after evidence is led.
  6. Jurisdiction to be Framed as a Preliminary Issue: The Court directed that the question of territorial jurisdiction be framed as a preliminary issue and decided after both parties lead evidence on, inter alia:
    • the nature and functionality of the Impugned Website and pharmahopers.com,
    • whether any enquiries or transactions originated from Delhi, and
    • whether any confusion or deception actually occurred among Delhi-based consumers.

Thus, while the Court did not finally affirm that it has territorial jurisdiction, it held that the plaintiff has pleaded enough to cross the threshold and that the issue cannot be summarily disposed of at the Order VII Rule 10 stage.

5. Detailed Analysis

5.1 Legal Framework: Territorial Jurisdiction & Demurrer

5.1.1 Order VII Rule 10 CPC – Return of Plaint

Order VII Rule 10 allows a court to return a plaint to be presented to the court in which it should have been instituted, if it appears that the court has no jurisdiction (territorial, pecuniary, or subject-matter).

Critically, this provision is meant for clear cases where, even if all facts pleaded by the plaintiff are assumed to be true, the court still would have no jurisdiction. If factual disputes exist regarding those very jurisdictional facts, the issue should normally go to trial (or at least be tried as a preliminary issue), rather than resulting in return of the plaint.

5.1.2 Section 20 CPC – Where Cause of Action Arises

Section 20 CPC confers jurisdiction on a court where:

  • the defendant resides, or carries on business, or personally works for gain; or
  • the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises.

In trade mark infringement and passing off suits, the Delhi High Court in Millennium & Copthorne International Limited v. Aryans Plaza Services Pvt. Ltd. has clarified that:

  • Cause of action arises where confusion or deception occurs, and
  • Where injury is caused to the plaintiff—for example, where consumers are confused and buy the defendant’s products believing them to be the plaintiff’s.

5.1.3 The Demurrer Principle

The Court relies heavily on the Supreme Court’s decision in Exphar Sa v. Eupharma Laboratories Ltd. (2004) 3 SCC 688 and the Delhi High Court decision in RSPL Ltd. v. Mukesh Sharma.

These authorities establish that:

  • When jurisdiction is challenged at a preliminary stage (as by Order VII Rule 10), the challenge is on a demurrer.
  • On a demurrer, the Court must assume that the facts stated in the plaint are true.
  • The challenge to jurisdiction can succeed only if, even on those assumed facts, the Court does not have jurisdiction as a matter of law.

Applied here, this means:

  • The Court must assume, at this stage, that:
    • the defendant’s website invites consumers (including in Delhi) to contact it for services,
    • product brochures mentioning the impugned marks are downloadable,
    • the impugned mark NEOVITAL is listed on pharmahopers.com with an interactive enquiry form, and
    • consumers in Delhi are being confused and misled, causing injury to the plaintiff.
  • The question is only: even if all of this is true, is the Delhi High Court still barred from entertaining the suit? The Court answers this in the negative.

5.2 Precedents Cited and Their Influence

5.2.1 Banyan Tree Holding (P) Ltd. v. A. Murali Krishna Reddy (2009 SCC OnLine Del 3780)

This is the foundational Delhi High Court judgment on internet jurisdiction. It introduced:

  • the “sliding scale” test – categorising websites from passive (merely informational) to fully interactive (allowing transactions); and
  • the “effects” test – examining whether the defendant’s activities produce a jurisdictionally significant effect in the forum state (e.g., harm or injury to the plaintiff in Delhi).

In Banyan Tree, the Court held that:

  • Jurisdiction is not attracted merely because a website is accessible in the forum state.
  • The plaintiff must prima facie show that:
    • the website is specifically or purposefully targeted at users in the forum state, and
    • some commercial transaction using the website was entered into, causing harm to the plaintiff in the forum state.

In Sun Pharma v. Artura, the defendant invoked Banyan Tree to argue that:

  • Artura’s website is not interactive enough,
  • there is no payment gateway or online ordering facility, and
  • there is no evidence of any commercial transaction with a Delhi-based user.

The Court, however, does not treat Banyan Tree as a rigid rule requiring documentary proof of an actual transaction at the Order VII Rule 10 stage. Instead, it emphasises that:

  • The sliding scale and effects tests are meant to aid determination of jurisdiction in internet cases, but
  • At the pleadings stage, the Court’s task is only to see whether the plaint, assuming its averments to be true, discloses a prima facie cause of action within the forum.

Crucially, the Court notes that whether the website is “passive plus” or “interactive” is fact-dependent and evidentiary, to be determined at trial, not summarily at the threshold.

5.2.2 Federal Express Corporation v. Fedex Securities Ltd. (2018 (74) PTC 205 (Del) (DB))

The defendant relied on this Division Bench decision, where:

  • The Court held that the plaintiff must show at least one illustration of a commercial transaction via the defendant’s website within the territorial jurisdiction to establish jurisdiction under Banyan Tree.

In Sun Pharma, the plaintiff had not yet produced a specific transaction instance. But the single judge distinguishes the context:

  • Federal Express was not about returning the plaint at the threshold on a demurrer; it concerned a more advanced stage of adjudication.
  • At the Order VII Rule 10 stage, pleading purposeful targeting and accessibility leading to confusion and injury is enough; proof of specific transactions belongs to the trial stage.

5.2.3 M/s Kohinoor Seed Fields India Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s Veda Seed Sciences Pvt. Ltd. (2025 SCC OnLine Del 2404)

In Kohinoor Seed, the Court had returned the plaint on the ground that:

  • Though IndiaMart was a dynamic website, there was no pleading or document showing any communication or order in Delhi for the defendant’s products.

The defendant relied on this to argue that mere listing on an online platform cannot confer jurisdiction. However:

  • The present judgment notes that an appeal is pending against Kohinoor Seed and judgment has been reserved.
  • More substantively, the Court treats the nature of platforms like pharmahopers.com as a factual question, to be addressed at trial.

Thus, while the Court does not expressly overrule Kohinoor Seed, it adopts a more cautious approach, resisting summary rejection of jurisdiction where online interactivity is pleaded.

5.2.4 RSPL Limited v. Mukesh Sharma (2016 SCC OnLine Del 4285)

This decision is cited by the plaintiff to reinforce that:

  • Objections to territorial jurisdiction under Order VII Rule 10 are to be decided on a demurrer.
  • The Court must take all plaint averments to be correct at this stage.

The present judgment directly applies this principle (read with Exphar) to internet jurisdiction disputes.

5.2.5 Exphar Sa v. Eupharma Laboratories Ltd. (2004) 3 SCC 688

The Supreme Court in Exphar held that:

  • When an objection to jurisdiction is raised by way of demurrer (and not at trial),
  • it must proceed on the basis that the facts pleaded by the initiator are true, and
  • the objection can succeed only if, granting those facts, the court has no jurisdiction as a matter of law.

This is one of the core pillars of Justice Karia’s reasoning: the Court reaffirms that at the Order VII Rule 10 stage, it cannot ask the plaintiff to prove actual sales or transactions in Delhi; it must accept the plaintiff’s version that such confusion and injury occur in Delhi via the online presence.

5.2.6 Millennium & Copthorne International Ltd. v. Aryans Plaza Services Pvt. Ltd. (2018 SCC OnLine Del 8260)

This case clarified that, in trade mark and passing off suits, jurisdiction can be invoked where:

  • the wrong is done to the plaintiff within the local limits of the court, and
  • the cause of action (wholly or in part) arises, which includes the place where confusion or deception occurs and injury is caused.

In Sun Pharma, the Court relies on this principle to hold that:

  • Even for internet-based disputes, jurisdiction arises where consumers in Delhi can access the impugned marks online, get confused, and thereby cause injury to the plaintiff in Delhi.

5.2.7 Tata Sons Pvt. Ltd. v. Hakunamatata Tata Founders & Ors. (2022 SCC OnLine Del 2968)

In Tata Sons, the Court observed that:

  • “Targeting” need not always involve very aggressive marketing.
  • The mere presence of a website accessible in a geography, and the ability of customers therein to access it, may, in given circumstances, be sufficient to show targeting.

Justice Karia uses this to bolster the view that:

  • A “Contact Us” page inviting users to “write to us” and “render our services”, combined with product brochures and aggregator listings, can amount to purposeful targeting of consumers in Delhi.

5.2.8 Marico Ltd. v. Mukesh Kumar & Ors. (2018 SCC OnLine Del 10823)

Marico is cited to support the proposition that interactive online platforms (like aggregator websites that facilitate trade and enquiries) may constitute sufficient commercial activity to ground jurisdiction when accessible in the forum.

The plaintiff relies on Marico to argue that pharmahopers.com is not a passive directory but a platform designed to facilitate trade opportunities and promote products, with interactive enquiry forms – all of which, at the pleading stage, the Court accepts as true.

5.3 The Court’s Legal Reasoning

5.3.1 Treatment of Pleadings at the Order VII Rule 10 Stage

The Court firmly reiterates that at this stage:

  • All jurisdictional facts pleaded in the plaint are assumed true.
  • The Court cannot demand proof of:
    • actual sales in Delhi,
    • actual online transactions originating in Delhi, or
    • actual instances of confusion in Delhi.

Accordingly, the Court accepts, for now, that:

  • Artura’s website carries a “Contact Us” page inviting users to write to it to render services,
  • A brochure mentioning PEPFIX and NEOVITAL is downloadable from the website,
  • NEOVITAL is listed on pharmahopers.com with an enquiry form, and
  • Consumers in Delhi are being confused and injured.

The question is therefore not whether these facts are ultimately true, but whether if they are true, the Court is nonetheless barred from exercising jurisdiction. The Court answers that it is not barred.

5.3.2 Characterisation of the Defendant’s Online Presence

On the nature of the Impugned Website and Subject Website, the Court holds:

  • The bare fact that the website has only a “Contact Us” form does not automatically make it non-interactive. Its functionality must be examined in context.
  • Here, the “Contact Us” page invites users to “write to us” so that the defendant can “render our services”. Given that the only service the defendant offers is manufacturing and sale of medicinal products (including those under the impugned marks), this invitation can reasonably be seen as a channel to initiate commercial dealings.
  • The Nutritional Supplement Brochure mentioning PEPFIX and NEOVITAL is available for download from the website, reinforcing that:
    • the website is product-centric and not merely corporate information; and
    • consumers in Delhi can access specific details of the impugned marks.
  • Pharmahopers.com is pleaded to be an interactive platform that:
    • facilitates trade opportunities,
    • promotes products and services online, and
    • hosts an enquiry form soliciting product requirements from potential buyers.

Accepting all this as true, the Court concludes that:

  • The defendant has prima facie made its products and marks available to consumers in Delhi through online platforms.
  • This amounts to purposeful availment of the Delhi forum and supports the plea that part of the cause of action arose in Delhi.

5.3.3 Sliding Scale, Effects, and Purposeful Availment

The Court does not reject the Banyan Tree tests, but clarifies their role at this stage:

  • The sliding scale test (passive vs interactive) and the effects test (jurisdictionally significant harm in the forum) are tools for assessing jurisdiction in internet disputes.
  • However, whether a website is “passive plus” or “interactive”, and whether its presence results in the required “effects”, are fact-intensive questions that should ordinarily not be conclusively decided at the Order VII Rule 10 stage.

Here, the Court finds enough, on the face of the plaint and annexures, to say:

  • The website is at least more than purely passive; it invites contact for services and hosts a product brochure.
  • The third-party listing is alleged to be interactive and commercially oriented.
  • Consumers in Delhi can:
    • access the content,
    • initiate contact or enquiries, and
    • potentially be confused.

On these assumptions, the Court holds that the plaintiff has sufficiently pleaded:

  • Purposeful availment of the Delhi market, and
  • Part of the cause of action (confusion and injury) arising within Delhi.

5.3.4 Jurisdiction as a Mixed Question of Law and Fact

A central thrust of the judgment is that territorial jurisdiction in such internet-based cases is often a mixed question of law and fact. This is so because:

  • Whether and how a website is accessed by consumers in a given territory is fact-dependent.
  • The functionality of features like “Contact Us” and enquiry forms requires examination of:
    • actual usage,
    • the nature of enquiries received, and
    • the business model of the defendant.
  • Whether the defendant truly operates on an export-only basis and has no Indian customers is also an evidentiary matter.

Consequently, the Court:

  • Refuses to decide these issues summarily under Order VII Rule 10.
  • Directs that territorial jurisdiction be framed as a preliminary issue and decided after both parties lead evidence.

5.3.5 Treatment of the Export-Only Argument

Artura’s defence that it manufactures only for export and does not sell in India is treated as a factual defence, not something that can be accepted at face value at the demurrer stage. The Court holds that:

  • Whether the defendant is genuinely export-only,
  • Whether any enquiries or sales have originated from India (and specifically Delhi), and
  • Whether Delhi-based consumers have been exposed to and confused by the impugned marks

are matters that can only be determined after:

  • Discovery,
  • Evidence (including electronic records and communication logs), and
  • Cross-examination, if necessary.

5.3.6 Part of the Cause of Action in Delhi

The Court notes:

  • It has already (in the ex parte injunction order) found that PEPFIX and NEOVITAL are prima facie deceptively similar to PEPFIZ and REVITAL.
  • The Nutritional Supplement Brochure mentioning the impugned marks is accessible via the defendant’s website.
  • Residents of Delhi can freely access the website and the brochure, and contact the defendant via the “Contact Us” page.

Thus, on the assumption that confusion and injury in Delhi are occurring (as pleaded), the Court holds that part of the cause of action has arisen in Delhi, satisfying Section 20(c) CPC.

5.4 Complex Concepts Simplified

5.4.1 Demurrer

A demurrer is a legal approach where one party says: “Even if everything stated by the other side is true, I am still entitled to succeed as a matter of law.” At the Order VII Rule 10 stage:

  • The defendant must show that even on the plaintiff’s version, the court has no jurisdiction.
  • The court does not test whether the plaintiff’s allegations are actually true; that comes later, at trial.

5.4.2 Order VII Rule 10 CPC

This rule allows a court to return a plaint when it appears that the court does not have jurisdiction to try the suit. It is a threshold filter: if there is any reasonable foundation on the pleadings for jurisdiction, the plaint is not to be returned; the issue goes to be decided on evidence.

5.4.3 Section 20 CPC and “Cause of Action”

“Cause of action” refers to all the facts which the plaintiff must prove to get relief. Under Section 20(c):

  • A court has jurisdiction if any part of the cause of action arises within its territorial limits.
  • In trade mark and passing off cases, cause of action arises where:
    • the defendant’s impugned mark is used or displayed,
    • consumers are confused or deceived, and
    • the plaintiff’s goodwill or business is injured.

5.4.4 Passive, Passive-Plus, and Interactive Websites

  • Passive Websites: Merely provide information (e.g., a static brochure) with no way to contact or transact.
  • Passive-Plus: Provide information plus some limited means of contacting the operator (e.g., email link, contact form) but no apparent commercial transaction facility.
  • Interactive Websites: Allow users to enter into transactions (e.g., shopping carts, payment gateways) or engage in meaningful two-way communication for commercial purposes.

In practice, this categorisation is not always clear-cut and must be assessed on evidence.

5.4.5 Sliding Scale and Effects Tests

  • Sliding Scale Test: The more interactive and transaction-oriented the website is, the more likely it is that a court will exercise jurisdiction where the website is accessible.
  • Effects Test: Even if the website is not highly interactive, if its operation causes a harmful effect (such as confusion, deception, loss) in the forum state, jurisdiction may still be justified.

5.4.6 Purposeful Availment

“Purposeful availment” means that the defendant has deliberately engaged with the forum state, such that it is reasonable to expect to be sued there. In internet cases, courts look at:

  • Whether the website or online listing targets customers in the forum (e.g., by inviting contact or enquiries), and
  • Whether the defendant benefits from business or reputation in the forum.

5.4.7 Preliminary Issue

A preliminary issue is a specific question (e.g., jurisdiction, limitation) that the court decides separately and usually before the rest of the case, but after evidence is taken if the issue involves disputed facts. Here, territorial jurisdiction is to be decided as such a preliminary issue.

5.5 Impact and Significance

5.5.1 For Trade Mark and IP Litigation

The judgment materially shifts the practical dynamics of jurisdictional objections in IP suits involving online activity:

  • Defendants will find it harder to secure return of the plaint at the Order VII Rule 10 stage where plaintiffs have pleaded:
    • interactive or quasi-interactive online presence, and
    • confusion and injury in the forum.
  • Courts are more likely to allow such suits to proceed and reserve jurisdiction for determination as a preliminary issue after evidence.
  • For plaintiffs, the judgment underscores the importance of:
    • careful drafting of jurisdictional averments, and
    • annexing screenshots, brochures, and site descriptions to demonstrate interactivity and accessibility.

5.5.2 For Online Businesses and Website Design

Companies that maintain websites with:

  • “Contact Us” forms inviting users to discuss business or services,
  • product brochures or catalogues, and
  • listings on aggregator platforms with enquiry forms,

must recognise that:

  • Such features may be viewed by courts as indicators of purposeful targeting of all jurisdictions where the website is accessible.
  • They can thereby expose the company to being sued in multiple forums, including where the business has no physical presence.

That said, the judgment does not hold that mere accessibility of a passive website always suffices; rather, it says that at the pleadings stage, where there is at least some interactive element and commercial orientation, courts should be slow to summarily reject jurisdiction.

5.5.3 Relationship with Banyan Tree and Federal Express

A subtle but important development in this decision is that it recalibrates how strictly the Banyan Tree and Federal Express standards are applied at the threshold stage:

  • Earlier cases could be read as implying that plaintiffs must show an actual commercial transaction in the forum to establish jurisdiction in internet disputes.
  • Sun Pharma clarifies that:
    • This requirement applies primarily at the evidentiary stage, not at the demurrer stage, and
    • At the Order VII Rule 10 stage, well-pleaded allegations of purposeful targeting and injury are sufficient to avoid return of the plaint.

In effect, the judgment adopts a more plaintiff-friendly threshold without discarding the substantive tests laid down in prior precedents.

5.5.4 For the Pharmaceutical Sector

The pharmaceutical industry often involves:

  • Manufacturing hubs located away from major metropolitan markets,
  • Contract manufacturing and “export-only” models, and
  • Use of online and aggregator platforms to publicise product ranges.

This decision sends a clear signal that:

  • Even if a company claims to be “export-only”, if its products and marks are promoted online in ways accessible and inviting contact from Indian consumers (including those in Delhi),
  • It may still have to defend litigation in those forums, subject to proof at trial.

5.5.5 Interaction with Pending Precedents

The Court notes that an appeal is pending in Kohinoor Seed and that judgment has been reserved. Meanwhile, Sun Pharma stakes out an intermediate position:

  • It does not categorically say that aggregator listings always confer jurisdiction,
  • But it insists that where the plaintiff pleads such listings as interactive and commercially oriented, the issue should not be disposed of summarily on a demurrer.

Future appellate decisions in Kohinoor Seed and related cases will determine whether this more cautious, evidence-sensitive approach becomes the dominant standard.

6. Key Takeaways

  • At the Order VII Rule 10 stage, jurisdictional challenges are decided on a demurrer: the plaint’s jurisdictional averments are assumed to be true.
  • A “Contact Us” page inviting users to “write to us” for services, together with product brochures and interactive aggregator listings, can be sufficient at the pleading stage to show purposeful availment of a forum and that part of the cause of action arose there.
  • The absence of a specific sales invoice or transaction instance in the forum is not fatal to jurisdiction at the demurrer stage; it is a matter for evidence and trial.
  • The question whether a website is passive, passive-plus, or interactive is a fact-intensive issue that generally cannot be conclusively decided on the basis of pleadings alone.
  • Export-only claims and assertions of no domestic sale are defences requiring proof, not grounds for automatic ouster of jurisdiction at the threshold.
  • Courts may increasingly treat territorial jurisdiction in internet IP disputes as a preliminary issue to be tried after evidence, rather than as a basis for immediate return of the plaint.

7. Conclusion

Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. v. Artura Pharmaceuticals P. Ltd. refines the law at the important intersection of civil procedure, territorial jurisdiction, and internet-based trade mark disputes.

The judgment does not dilute the substantive requirements of Banyan Tree and Federal Express; instead, it clarifies that those standards must be applied at the proper procedural stage. At the threshold, where Order VII Rule 10 and the demurrer principle apply, a plaintiff who pleads:

  • interactive or semi-interactive online presence of the defendant,
  • accessibility of impugned marks in the forum via the internet, and
  • confusion and injury within the forum,

is entitled to have the suit proceed to trial. The defendant’s contrary version—that the website is merely passive, that there are no transactions in the forum, or that it is export-only—is part of the factual contest to be resolved at trial, not a basis for summary rejection of jurisdiction.

In doing so, the Delhi High Court adopts a balanced, evidence-sensitive approach that protects plaintiffs from premature dismissal of internet-based IP suits while preserving the defendant’s right to contest jurisdiction on facts. The case will likely serve as an important precedent on the threshold for returning plaints in online IP litigation, especially for industries that rely heavily on digital presence, such as pharmaceuticals.

Case Details

Year: 2025
Court: Delhi High Court

Judge(s)

Justice Tejas Karia

Advocates

Comments