Delhi HC Holds Online Marketplace Access Creates Jurisdiction, Restores Radhey Krishna Trademark Suit

The Delhi High Court on 1 July restored a trademark infringement suit over the “RADHEY KRISHNA” agarbatti mark, holding that a Trial Court had wrongly returned the plaint for want of territorial jurisdiction despite evidence that the goods in question were listed on IndiaMart.

A Division Bench of Justices C. Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla restored the suit filed by Rukhmani Keshwani, trading as “Vishwas Agarbatti Store,” against Raju Agarbatti Works, for adjudication on merits. It held:

"Every place where the website of an entity would be accessible for the purpose of concluding a commercial transaction would amount to a place where the entity has a market place."

Rukhmani Keshwani, trading as “Vishwas Agarbatti Store,” instituted a commercial suit before the Shahdara Commercial Court, Delhi. She claimed prior adoption of the mark and trade dress “RADHEY KRISHNA” since 1995 and alleged that Raju Agarbatti Works had adopted deceptively similar marks, namely “Lucky Radha Krishna” and “Harsh Radha Krishna,” for identical goods.

The Trial Court had initially granted an ex parte ad interim injunction in favour of Keshwani. The defendants, however, challenged maintainability of the suit, contending that both parties operated from Ajmer, Rajasthan, and that no part of the cause of action arose in Delhi.

The Commercial Court later returned the plaint, holding that Ajmer constituted the “real and substantial situs” of the dispute since both parties carried on business there and the Local Commissioner's search and seizure had also taken place there.

The High Court rejected this approach, holding that the Trial Court applied an unduly restrictive standard while appreciating jurisdictional facts and failed to properly assess the material showing a Delhi nexus.

It noted that the plaintiff had produced evidence of commercial deliveries within Delhi through her online platform. It further relied on the defendants' IndiaMart listing, which contained GST particulars and a business address, and observed that no steps had been taken to remove the listing.

Further, the Bench held that once goods were shown to be available for purchase within the jurisdiction, the question of who created or maintained the online listing was immaterial for determining territorial jurisdiction.

Relying on Kohinoor Seed Fields India Pvt Ltd v Veda Seed Sciences Pvt Ltd, it reiterated that accessibility of a website enabling commercial transactions constitutes a marketplace sufficient to confer jurisdiction.

Accordingly, the High Court set aside the finding on territorial jurisdiction, allowed the appeal, and restored the suit for adjudication on merits. It directed the parties to appear before the District Judge on 10 July 2026, and directed the Trial Court to proceed uninfluenced by its observations.