Delhi High Court Says Rohini Commercial Court Has Jurisdiction In 'AMRAPALI' Trademark Dispute
The Delhi High Court has set aside an order of the Commercial Court at Rohini, which had prima facie held that it lacked territorial jurisdiction to hear a trademark dispute relating to the spice brand “AMRAPALI” and, while doing so, declined to grant interim relief against the rival mark “QUEEN AAMRAPALI.”
A Division Bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla, in a judgment delivered on January 13, 2026, ruled that the Commercial Court had erred in concluding that it lacked jurisdiction. The Bench remanded the matter for fresh consideration of the plea seeking interim relief.
Holding that the Commercial Court did have territorial jurisdiction, the Court noted that Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure permits a suit to be instituted where the defendant carries on business or where a part of the cause of action arises.
Referring to its earlier decisions, the Court observed that, “As we have held in our decisions in Diamond Modular and Kohinoor-II, prominently following the earlier Division Bench in World Wrestling Entertainment, in the e-commerce age, every virtual platform over which the defendant's goods or services would be available operates as a brick-and-mortar store present in every location where that website is accessible.”
The dispute concerns the mark “AMRAPALI,” used for spices and allied products by Raju Kumar, who claims ownership of the registered trademark and the mark “QUEEN AAMRAPALI,” used by Vinod Sah for similar goods.
Kumar asserted that he has been using the “AMRAPALI” mark since 1997 and obtained its registration in 2020. He alleged that Sah's use of the mark “QUEEN AAMRAPALI,” along with similar packaging for spices, amounted to trademark infringement and passing off.
He further claimed that the competing products were being sold and advertised in Delhi, including through online platforms and e-commerce websites, thereby allegedly causing consumer confusion.
In January 2024, the Commercial Court had granted an ad-interim injunction in favour of “AMRAPALI,” restraining the use of the “QUEEN AAMRAPALI” mark. However, in August 2025, it held that it lacked territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute, while also observing that the requirements for grant of interim injunction were not satisfied.
Aggrieved by this decision, Kumar approached the Delhi High Court.
Rejecting the Commercial Court's view, the Division Bench held that the availability of goods on interactive online platforms accessible in Delhi is sufficient to confer jurisdiction on Delhi courts.
The Court further noted that, “Tata Sons further dilutes the principle by holding that even the possibility of interacting over a website, without any commercial element involved, would also be sufficient to invoke territorial jurisdiction of a particular court within whose jurisdiction the website is accessible.”
On the merits of the dispute, the Bench observed that the Commercial Court had failed to adequately examine the claims of trademark infringement and passing off, as it proceeded on an erroneous assumption that it lacked jurisdiction.
Accordingly, the Court set aside the jurisdiction-related findings in the impugned order and remanded the matter to the Commercial Court for fresh consideration of the interim injunction application.
For Appellant: Senior Advocate J. Sai Deepak with Advocates Anil Kumar Sahu, Roshan Kumar, Suva Batabyal and Sourav Kumar
For Respondent: Advocates Tashriq Ahmad, Farzeen Iqbal and Mohd. Abeer