Territorial jurisdiction in internet disputes requires purposeful forum targeting and prima facie forum-based injury, not mere website accessibility.

In internet-based passing off and infringement disputes, territorial jurisdiction under Section 20(c) is not established by mere website accessibility or interactivity. The plaintiff must prima facie show that the defendant purposefully availed itself of the forum by specifically targeting users in that state for commercial transactions, and that injury or harm arose there. Trap transactions may be evidentiary, but a single trap transaction cannot by itself establish purposeful availment or jurisdiction; any series of such transactions must be fairly obtained and supported by clear pleadings and material showing a real commercial nexus with the forum.

---

---

Issues: (i) When a defendant hosts a universally accessible website, in what circumstances can a court assume jurisdiction in a passing off or infringement action where the plaintiff does not carry on business within the forum? (ii) What must the plaintiff prima facie show to establish territorial jurisdiction under Section 20(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in an internet-based passing off or infringement dispute? (iii) Can jurisdiction be established through trap orders or trap transactions?

Issue (i): When the plaintiff is outside the forum state and there is no special long-arm provision applicable to the claim, mere accessibility of a website in the forum is insufficient. Jurisdiction depends on whether the defendant purposefully availed itself of the forum by using the website to conclude commercial transactions and whether the defendant specifically targeted the forum state so that injury or harm was caused there.

Conclusion: Mere accessibility of a website does not confer jurisdiction; purposeful availment and specific targeting of the forum state are required.

Issue (ii): For jurisdiction under Section 20(c), the plaintiff must plead and produce material prima facie showing that the website, whether described as passive or interactive, was specifically targeted at users in the forum state for commercial transactions, and that such targeting resulted in injury or harm to the plaintiff within the forum state. Interactivity alone is not enough.

Conclusion: The plaintiff must prima facie prove specific targeting and a resulting forum-based injury or harm; interactivity by itself is insufficient.

Issue (iii): Trap transactions may be evidentiary, but a solitary trap transaction cannot establish purposeful availment or territorial jurisdiction. If a series of trap transactions is relied on, they must be shown to have been obtained fairly and must be supported by clear pleadings and material demonstrating a real commercial transaction not engineered solely by the plaintiff.

Conclusion: Trap transactions may be relied upon only with caution and fairness, and a solitary trap transaction cannot establish jurisdiction.

Final Conclusion: The legal standard for internet-based jurisdiction in passing off and infringement actions requires purposeful forum targeting and proof of a real commercial nexus with the forum, and the matter was sent back for the single judge to apply that standard to the facts.

Ratio Decidendi: In the absence of a long-arm statute, territorial jurisdiction over internet-based passing off or infringement claims exists only where the defendant purposefully targets the forum state for commercial activity and the plaintiff shows a prima facie forum-based injury arising from that targeting.

---