Court rules mere accessibility of respondent’s website in Chennai insufficient to establish territorial jurisdiction; suit must be filed where cause of action arises.
In a significant ruling on September 7, 2026, the Madras High Court dismissed an application seeking leave to file a commercial suit in Chennai for trademark infringement and passing off relating to the mark “PREETHI HOSPITALS.” The applicants, Blossom Global Trust and Preethi Hospitals Private Limited, alleged that the respondent, Augustine Educational and Charitable Trust, infringed their registered trademark by using a similar name “S. PREETHI GROUP OF COLLEGES” and intended to start a nursing college under “S. PREETHI NURSING COLLEGE.”
The applicants’ case hinged on several factors they argued connected the dispute to Chennai, including the registration of their trademarks through the Chennai Trade Marks Registry, statutory dealings with authorities in Chennai, students and patients from Chennai associated with their institutions, and the accessibility of the respondent’s websites in Chennai, which purportedly invited online applications from prospective students.
However, Justice Dr. A.D. Maria Clete, delivering the judgment, held that for the Madras High Court to entertain the suit under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent, a part of the cause of action must have arisen within the local limits of Chennai’s original civil jurisdiction. The court emphasized that a cause of action requires some act done by the defendant within the jurisdiction that the plaintiff must prove to obtain a decree.
The court scrutinized the plaint and found that the acts attributed to the respondent—namely, the adoption and use of the impugned names—occurred in Sivagangai district, not Chennai. The applicants’ own pleadings placed the respondent’s activities outside Chennai, and the mere fact that the applicants’ trademark registration was obtained in Chennai or that some students and patients hailed from Chennai did not constitute an act of infringement within Chennai.
Critically, the court addressed the internet-related submissions. While the respondent’s websites were accessible nationwide, mere accessibility of a website in Chennai was held insufficient to establish jurisdiction. The applicants failed to demonstrate that the respondent specifically targeted Chennai residents, entered into commercial transactions with Chennai-based users, or caused injury within Chennai through the website. The court noted the respondent’s website was not even fully operational for applications and lacked any Chennai-specific content or transactions.
The judgment referenced several precedents, including Banyan Tree Holding v. A. Murali Krishna Reddy and Burger King Corporation v. Techchand Shewakramani, emphasizing the requirement of “purposeful availment” and specific targeting to confer jurisdiction based on internet activity.
Moreover, the court clarified that the doctrine of forum conveniens does not apply in cases where jurisdiction is absent. As no part of the cause of action arose within Chennai, the court did not exercise discretion to grant leave. The natural forum for the suit remained Madurai and Sivagangai, where both parties’ activities and the alleged infringement occurred.
Consequently, the court dismissed the application seeking leave to file the suit in Chennai and ordered the registry to return the plaint, ruling that the applicants must approach the court with proper territorial jurisdiction.
This ruling reinforces the principle that for territorial jurisdiction under Indian law, including Clause 12 of the Letters Patent and Section 134(2) of the Trade Marks Act, the cause of action must have a tangible connection to the forum where the suit is instituted. It also underscores judicial caution in extending jurisdiction based on internet accessibility absent concrete evidence of targeted commercial activity or harm within the forum.
Bottom Line:
Trademark infringement - Mere accessibility of a website in a particular jurisdiction does not suffice to establish territorial jurisdiction unless specific targeting or injury within the forum is demonstrated.
Statutory provision(s):
Trade Marks Act, 1999 Sections 28, 29, 134(2);
