By Vohra & Vohra
The rapid expansion of e-commerce has fundamentally transformed the manner in which businesses market and sell their products. While digital marketplaces have enabled enterprises to reach consumers across geographical boundaries, they have simultaneously complicated one of the most basic procedural questions in intellectual property litigation—which court has jurisdiction to entertain a trademark infringement suit where the infringing products are sold online?
The Delhi High Court’s decision in Rukmani Keshwani v. Raju Agarbatti Works (Judgment dated 1 July 2026) is an important milestone in answering this question. Reversing the findings of the Commercial Court, the Division Bench held that where allegedly infringing goods are available for purchase through interactive online marketplaces accessible within Delhi, and actual commercial transactions are capable of being completed within Delhi, the Delhi Courts possess territorial jurisdiction irrespective of whether the defendant personally uploaded the listings.
The judgment significantly strengthens the ability of trademark owners to enforce their rights against online infringement while simultaneously clarifying the evolving principles governing digital commerce under the Code of Civil Procedure and the Trade Marks Act.
Background of the Dispute
The appellant instituted a commercial suit alleging trademark infringement and passing off in respect of agarbatti products marketed under a deceptively similar mark.
The principal controversy, however, did not concern deceptive similarity. Instead, the Commercial Court dismissed the suit at the threshold after concluding that Delhi Courts lacked territorial jurisdiction.
According to the defendant, it had neither carried on business within Delhi nor uploaded the impugned product listings appearing on third-party e-commerce platforms such as IndiaMart and Kalgudi. Since the listings allegedly originated from independent intermediaries rather than the defendant itself, the trial court concluded that no part of the cause of action had arisen within Delhi.
The plaintiff challenged this finding before the Division Bench.
Territorial Jurisdiction in the Digital Marketplace
The Division Bench recognised that conventional principles governing territorial jurisdiction require adaptation in the context of electronic commerce.
Historically, infringement actions were instituted where infringing goods were manufactured, sold or distributed through physical channels. Digital marketplaces, however, eliminate geographical limitations by enabling transactions across multiple jurisdictions simultaneously.
The Court therefore examined whether availability of allegedly infringing goods for purchase through interactive online platforms constituted sufficient territorial nexus with Delhi.
Answering this question in the affirmative, the Court relied extensively upon earlier precedents including World Wrestling Entertainment Inc. v. Reshma Collection, holding that online marketplaces create a commercial presence wherever consumers are capable of concluding transactions. Once an infringing product is offered for sale through an interactive website that permits commercial transactions, the tort of infringement extends to every jurisdiction where such transactions may be completed.
This marks another important step in adapting traditional procedural principles to the realities of digital commerce.
The Identity of the Person Uploading the Listing Is Legally Irrelevant
Perhaps the most significant contribution of the judgment lies in its treatment of the defendant’s principal defence.
The defendant argued that the online listings appearing on IndiaMart and Kalgudi had not been uploaded by it but by unidentified third parties. Consequently, according to the defendant, those listings could not create territorial jurisdiction.
The Division Bench rejected this submission in unequivocal terms.
The Court observed that the question of who created the online listing is entirely distinct from the question of territorial jurisdiction. Once allegedly infringing goods are available for sale within a jurisdiction, the tort of trademark infringement is complete irrespective of whether the listing originated from the manufacturer, distributor or another intermediary.
Whether the defendant actually authorised or controlled the listings may ultimately become relevant while determining liability at trial. It does not, however, determine whether the Court possesses jurisdiction to entertain the suit.
This distinction is of considerable practical significance because defendants increasingly seek dismissal of infringement suits by distancing themselves from online marketplace listings generated through dealers or distributors.
The judgment makes it clear that such arguments cannot ordinarily defeat jurisdiction at the threshold stage.
Interactive E-Commerce Platforms Create Commercial Presence
The Court further examined the nature of the online platforms involved.
Unlike passive informational websites, IndiaMart and Kalgudi function as interactive commercial marketplaces facilitating transactions between buyers and sellers.
The plaintiff successfully demonstrated that consumers located within Delhi could access the listings, place purchase orders and obtain delivery of the allegedly infringing products through these platforms. The electronic evidence also established actual commercial transactions and deliveries within Delhi.
The Division Bench held that these circumstances established a real, substantial and proximate connection between the cause of action and the territorial jurisdiction of Delhi Courts.
Importantly, the Court emphasised that jurisdiction cannot be defeated merely because commerce is conducted through digital rather than physical channels.
Digital Evidence Assumes Greater Importance
Another noteworthy aspect of the judgment is its treatment of electronic evidence.
The plaintiff relied upon GST-linked business particulars displayed on the online platforms together with evidence of successful commercial transactions within Delhi.
The Court regarded these electronic records as significant corroborative material demonstrating that the defendant had consciously projected its commercial activities into the jurisdiction.
As commercial litigation increasingly migrates into the digital environment, screenshots, transaction records, delivery confirmations, online invoices and platform-generated data are likely to assume greater evidentiary importance in establishing territorial jurisdiction.
The judgment therefore reflects the judiciary’s growing recognition of electronic commerce as an integral component of contemporary trade.
Reaffirming Access to Justice for Brand Owners
The broader significance of the judgment lies in its practical impact upon trademark enforcement.
If jurisdiction were restricted only to the place where a seller physically operates, trademark proprietors would often be compelled to initiate multiple proceedings across different states despite the infringing products being uniformly available nationwide through online marketplaces.
Such an approach would substantially increase litigation costs while simultaneously encouraging infringers to exploit jurisdictional complexities.
By recognising that the situs of infringement extends to every location where online commercial transactions may be concluded, the Delhi High Court has ensured that procedural law remains responsive to modern business realities.
The decision therefore promotes both judicial efficiency and effective enforcement of intellectual property rights.
Implications for Businesses
The judgment carries important lessons for businesses operating through digital channels.
First, businesses should appreciate that listing products on interactive e-commerce platforms may expose them to litigation in every jurisdiction where consumers can complete transactions.
Secondly, manufacturers cannot readily avoid jurisdiction by contending that dealers, distributors or third-party marketplace operators independently created online listings.
Thirdly, businesses should maintain effective control over digital distribution channels to ensure that unauthorised listings do not expose them to unnecessary litigation.
Finally, trademark owners should preserve comprehensive electronic evidence demonstrating accessibility, purchase capability and actual delivery of infringing products while instituting infringement proceedings.
Conclusion
The Delhi High Court’s decision in Rukmani Keshwani v. Raju Agarbatti Works represents another important milestone in the evolution of Indian trademark jurisprudence for the digital economy.
By holding that territorial jurisdiction is determined by the availability of infringing goods for commercial purchase rather than the identity of the person uploading the listing, the Court has substantially strengthened the ability of brand owners to enforce their intellectual property rights in the online marketplace.
The judgment recognises an undeniable commercial reality: in the age of e-commerce, infringement is no longer confined to physical marketplaces. Once goods are offered for sale through interactive online platforms capable of completing transactions within a jurisdiction, the law must equally recognise that jurisdiction as the situs of infringement.
For businesses, the message is unmistakable. Digital commerce has dissolved geographical barriers not only for trade—but equally for trademark enforcement.