Delhi High Court Says Regoshin Healthcare's Online Presence Sufficient To Let Trademark Suit Proceed In Delhi

The Delhi High Court has recently refused to return a trademark infringement and passing off suit filed by Amritsar-based businessman Ravinder Singh against Regoshin Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. and others.

Singh has alleged infringement of his registered 'ROYAL' and 'ROYU' trademarks through the use of allegedly deceptively similar marks for pharmaceutical and allied products.

Justice Jyoti Singh held that, at the threshold stage, the court was required to proceed on the basis that the averments in the plaint were to be accepted as “the gospel truth,” while deciding the objection on the basis of the plaint and documents filed with it.

Singh, who trades as Royal International, has sought a permanent injunction against Regoshin Healthcare and other entities. He has alleged that they are using impugned marks, including 'Regoshin' and other allegedly deceptively similar marks in relation to dietary supplements, pharmaceuticals, medicinal products, and allied goods.

Singh also alleged that the entities were jointly manufacturing, marketing, and selling counterfeit goods under the impugned marks. According to him, this was harming his brand reputation and goodwill.

Regoshin Healthcare and the other contesting entities sought return of the suit, arguing that Delhi courts lacked territorial jurisdiction. They contended that Singh's principal place of business is in Amritsar, Punjab, and that they do not carry on business in Delhi.

They also argued that they do not possess the necessary drug licence to sell in Delhi. Therefore, according to them, any allegation of a threat of sale in Delhi was merely a “piece of clever drafting.”

The Court noted that there was prima facie merit in the contention that Singh could not invoke the special forum available on the basis of his place of business, since the documents on record indicated that his business was being carried on from Amritsar.

However, Justice Singh held that this was not determinative of the issue. The Court said the suit could still proceed in Delhi if part of the cause of action had arisen there.

The Court noted that Singh had specifically pleaded that Regoshin Healthcare maintained a dedicated website with a “Contact Us” page accessible in Delhi. According to the pleadings, the page displayed the company's Delhi registered office address, contact details, visitation hours, and other communication touchpoints.

The court also noted that the website displayed product listings. Singh had additionally relied on listings of the impugned products on third-party platforms such as IndiaMart and Justdial, arguing that consumers in Delhi could access and establish contact through these platforms.

Rejecting the objection, Justice Singh observed the issue had to be examined on the basis of the plaint and the documents filed with it at this stage. “All averments made in the plaint at this threshold stage have to be accepted to be true and correct,” the Court said.

The Court added that the averments must be assumed to be “the gospel truth.”

The Court held that the contention regarding the absence of a Delhi drug licence was a defence that could not be examined at this preliminary stage.

Relying on earlier decisions, the Court observed that targeting customers need not involve “very aggressive” marketing. It added that, in a given case, the mere online presence of a website in a geographical area, coupled with the ability of customers there to access it, could be sufficient.

The Court further held that whether the website was merely passive or actually facilitated commercial transactions was a mixed question of law and fact. This issue, it said, could only be conclusively determined after evidence was led.

The Court also found that the listings on third-party platforms could not be dismissed at this stage as mere directory entries. It said the pleadings suggested these platforms functioned as facilitators through which the products were advertised and promoted to potential customers.

Accordingly, the Court dismissed the application seeking return of the suit.

However, it clarified that Regoshin Healthcare and the other contesting entities would remain free to raise the territorial jurisdiction objection at later stages of the proceedings.

The matter is scheduled for further hearing on August 27, 2026