Digital Storefronts Define Trademark Jurisdiction, Rules Delhi HC

Rukhmani Keshwani v. Raju Agarbatti Works & Anr., FAO (COMM) 99/2024 (Delhi High Court, Division Bench, decided 01.07.2026)

Why This Case Matters

For any business that sells through a website, a marketplace listing, or a platform like IndiaMart, Amazon, or Etsy, this ruling answers a question that keeps coming up in Indian IP litigation: can you be sued for trademark or copyright infringement in a city where you have no office, no warehouse, and no employee — simply because your goods are listed online and reachable there?

The Delhi High Court's answer, reaffirming and extending its own recent line of authority, is yes — provided the online listing shows purposeful commercial targeting, not mere passive accessibility. Actual completed sales are not required. This has direct consequences for how foreign and domestic manufacturers, franchisors, and e-commerce sellers should think about litigation risk exposure across Indian jurisdictions.

---

The Dispute in Brief

Rukhmani Keshwani, trading as Vishwas Agarbatti Store (based in Ajmer, Rajasthan), claimed prior and continuous use since 1995 of the trademark and trade dress "RADHEY KRISHNA" for agarbattis (incense sticks). She sued Raju Agarbatti Works  (also based in Ajmer, Rajasthan) and another party, alleging they were selling deceptively similar products under the marks "Lucky Radha Krishna" and "Harsh Radha Krishna."

Both the plaintiff and the defendants were based in Ajmer, Rajasthan — the seizure and enforcement action in the case had even taken place there. On that basis, the Commercial Court in Shahdara, Delhi, twice attempted to throw the suit out for lack of territorial jurisdiction: first at the pleadings stage (reversed on appeal and remanded for trial), and then again — this time after a full trial, with witnesses examined and cross-examined — holding that Rajasthan, not Delhi, was the "natural forum."

The plaintiff appealed a second time. The narrow legal question before the Division Bench: does evidence of (a) the plaintiff's own online deliveries into Delhi and (b) the defendants' IndiaMart listings — bearing their verified GST number and business address, but with no evidence of a single completed sale into Delhi — amount to a "part cause of action" sufficient to sustain jurisdiction under Section 20(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, read with Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and Section 62 of the Copyright Act, 1957?

---

What the Trial Court Got Wrong — and Why the High Court Reversed It

The Trial Court had leaned heavily on the Supreme Court's decision in Indian Performing Rights Society Ltd. v. Sanjay Dalia (2015), reading it as a broad caution against "forum shopping" that effectively confined IP suits to the place where the parties principally carry on business.

The High Court disagreed with that reading. It held that IPRS is a narrow anti-abuse doctrine: it stops a plaintiff from dragging a defendant to a forum with no real connection to the dispute merely because the plaintiff maintains a subordinate office there. It was never intended to shut out jurisdiction in a forum where an independent, substantive part of the cause of action genuinely arises — including through online commercial activity.

Critically, the Bench also drew a procedural distinction that matters for litigators: at the Order VII Rule 11 ("demurrer") stage, a court must simply take the plaint's assertions at face value. But this case had already gone through full trial. The plaintiff had led unrebutted documentary evidence of commercial deliveries into Delhi, and the defendants had admitted in cross-examination that the GST details and business address on their IndiaMart listing were their own, and that they had taken no steps to remove or dispute the listing. On settled evidence law, unchallenged material evidence is treated as admitted. The Trial Court, in the High Court's view, applied an unduly narrow evidentiary lens to facts that had already been proven, not merely pleaded.

---

The Doctrinal Chain: From "Passive Websites" to "Purposeful Commercial Targeting"

The judgment is a useful roadmap of how Indian courts have progressively adapted territorial jurisdiction rules to e-commerce:

Case	Principle Established
Banyan Tree Holding v. A. Murali Krishna Reddy (2009)	First drew the line between a passive website (mere information) and an interactive one capable of concluding a transaction — only the latter could found jurisdiction.
World Wrestling Entertainment v. Reshma Collection (2014)	Held that an interactive website over which a transaction could be concluded is enough to constitute "carrying on business" in a forum — an actual concluded sale is not required.
Kohinoor Seed Fields India v. Veda Seed Sciences (2025)	Extended the WWE logic squarely into IP infringement disputes: once a defendant consciously projects goods through an interactive platform enabling solicitation, inquiry, or purchase by consumers in a forum state, that constitutes a material part of the cause of action — proof of a completed sale is unnecessary.
Rukhmani Keshwani (2026)	Applies this chain to reverse a post-trial jurisdictional dismissal, confirming that admitted, GST-linked online listings plus documented deliveries are sufficient — even where both parties are otherwise rooted in a single home state.

 

The throughline: Indian courts have moved decisively away from requiring proof of a concluded transaction within the forum, toward a purposeful-availment style test that will feel familiar to practitioners versed in US "minimum contacts" jurisprudence or EU "directed activity" tests under Brussels Recast Regulation case law.

---

What Was Actually Decided (and What Wasn't)

It's worth being precise about the scope of this ruling, since it is easy to overstate:

• Decided: The Delhi courts do have territorial jurisdiction to hear this dispute. The Trial Court's return of the plaint was set aside.
• Decided: Interactive online listings with verified, admitted business details, plus documented cross-border deliveries, are legally sufficient to establish a "part cause of action" — without any need to prove a completed infringing sale within the forum.
• Not decided: The underlying trademark and copyright infringement claims themselves. The suit stands restored to the Trial Court, with the parties directed to appear on 10 July 2026 to continue proceedings on the merits — including, notably, the defendants' still-unresolved argument that the plaintiff's own trademark registration is territorially confined to Rajasthan.
• Not decided: Any question of the defendants' liability for listings potentially placed by third parties (a point the Kohinoor Seed Fields extract itself flags as a matter properly left to trial where relevant).

For parties to the proceedings, this means: jurisdiction is now settled, but the case — and the underlying merits — continue. This is a procedural win, not a final judgment on infringement.

---

Practical Implications

For foreign law firms and IP practitioners advising clients selling into India: A client with no physical presence at a particular place can still be sued there, if its goods are listed on marketplaces reachable from — and arguably targeted at — those cities. "We have no office there" is no longer a reliable jurisdictional shield. Conversely, plaintiffs with a genuine India-wide online sales footprint have meaningfully expanded venue options beyond their home state.

For Indian law firms: This judgment, alongside Kohinoor Seed Fields and Raju Kumar v. Vinod Sah (now affirmed by the Supreme Court), consolidates a Delhi High Court line that should be treated as close to settled law within that jurisdiction. Defendants resisting Delhi jurisdiction on Order VII Rule 11 applications will need more than a "we operate elsewhere" argument — they will need to affirmatively disprove purposeful targeting, ideally before any admissions are made in cross-examination.

For corporate clients and start-ups selling via marketplaces (IndiaMart, Amazon, Flipkart, Instamojo, etc.): Marketplace listings are not jurisdictionally neutral. GST-linked, address-verified listings can and will be used as an admission of purposeful business activity in any city those listings reach. Businesses should:

• Audit which marketplace listings display verifiable business identifiers (GST number, registered address).
• Recognise that disputing or promptly removing a disputed listing may carry evidentiary weight if litigation risk is anticipated.
• Factor in that a dispute originating from a single-state operation can now realistically be litigated in a metro jurisdiction distant from the business's home base — with attendant cost and logistics implications.

For brand owners and licensors: This ruling strengthens the hand of trademark and copyright owners seeking to litigate in a convenient, IP-experienced forum (such as Delhi) against infringers based elsewhere in India, so long as the infringer's goods are demonstrably reaching consumers in that forum through online channels — a common fact pattern given the ubiquity of B2B marketplaces like IndiaMart.

---

Key Takeaway

Rukhmani Keshwani v. Raju Agarbatti Works confirms that in Indian IP litigation, an interactive online listing is functionally equivalent to a physical storefront for jurisdictional purposes. Businesses — whether plaintiffs seeking a convenient forum or defendants trying to avoid one — should treat their online commercial footprint as a live jurisdictional fact, not a passive marketing detail.