Delhi HC Refuses to Reject Astral's Trademark Suit Against Astral Marketing Over Justdial Listing Accessible In Delhi

The Delhi High Court has recently refused to throw out a trademark infringement suit filed by Astral Ltd against Astral Marketing Syndicate. The Court observed that the defendant's Justdial listing enabled customers in Delhi to access product information and contact the business, thereby prima facie giving rise to part of the cause of action in the capital.

Justice Tejas Karia held that the functionality of the listing could reasonably be construed as facilitating commercial transactions. The Court also noted that Astral Ltd maintains a subordinate office in Delhi.

Applying the decisions of this Court in Sun Pharmaceutical (supra) and Ravinder Singh (supra) to the facts of the present case, Defendant No. 1's listing on Justdial, through which the alleged infringing products are advertised and can be explored by customers in Delhi, who may also access the product catalog and contact Defendant No. 1 for placing orders, prima facie gives rise to part of the cause of action in Delhi. This functionality of the listing on Justdial may reasonably be construed as facilitating commercial transactions.”, the court ruled.

Astral Marketing Syndicate had sought rejection of the plaint. It contended that both parties have their principal places of business in Ahmedabad. The defendant also argued that there was no material on record showing any commercial transaction in Delhi involving the allegedly infringing products.

The defendant further contended that its Justdial advertisement was directed at customers in Gujarat. It argued that mere spillover circulation of an advertisement could not confer territorial jurisdiction on the Court.

Astral Ltd opposed the plea. It contended that the defendant was carrying on business in Delhi through its Justdial listing. According to the plaintiff, the listing allowed consumers to access its catalogue, download its business card, initiate chats and submit enquiries. The company also relied on the existence of its subordinate office in Delhi.

The Court observed that, while examining a jurisdictional objection at this stage, the averments in the plaint must be assumed to be true under the demurrer principle.

Referring to earlier decisions on internet-based trademark disputes, the Court noted that online platforms accessible within a jurisdiction may facilitate commercial transactions depending on their functionality. In such cases, they may give rise to a part of the cause of action within that jurisdiction.

The court was not persuaded by the defendant's argument that the absence of evidence of actual sales in Delhi was fatal to the suit. It observed that questions relating to the nature of the listing and the extent of its interactivity would require evidence. Whether any commercial transactions actually took place would also have to be examined on evidence. These issues could not be conclusively determined at the preliminary stage.

The court also referred to the plaintiff's pleading that it maintains a subordinate office in Delhi. It observed that courts in places where a plaintiff has a subordinate office may also exercise jurisdiction where part of the cause of action arises there.

Rejecting the application, the Court held that the pleadings and documents on record disclosed, at least prima facie, that part of the cause of action had arisen in Delhi. This was because the defendant's alleged infringing products were advertised through a Justdial listing that was accessible to customers in Delhi.

“In view of the foregoing analysis, the present Application is liable to be dismissed. However, the rights and contentions of the Defendant No. 1 with respect to the issue of territorial jurisdiction are kept open to be urged at the appropriate stage in the Suit, and the same shall be adjudicated on their own merits. Subject to the aforesaid observations, the present Application stands dismissed," the court ultimately held.