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 R...
Summary The Delhi High Court clarified that trademark protection extends only to the specific goods within the class for which the mark is registered, and a proprietor cannot claim exclusivity over all goods in that class merely because of a similar mark, particularly when not using the mark for those goods. Introduction This appeal challenges the judgment of the Patiala House District Court, which dismissed the Appellant's application for interim injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The underlying suit seeks permanent injunction restraining the Respondent from using the trademark "PRUEASE" (Impugned Mark) on the ground that it is deceptively similar to the Appellant's trademark "PRO-EASE" (Subject Mark). Both marks are registered in Class 5 of the Trade Marks Registry, but are used for entirely different product categories within that class. Background and Facts The Appellant conceived and adopted the Subject Mark ...