Territorial jurisdiction for corporate trademark suits requires real office presence; mere online sales do not suffice.

For a corporate plaintiff, territorial jurisdiction under Section 134(2) of the Trade Marks Act depends on a real business presence at the forum, read with Section 20 CPC. Mere access to a website or internet transactions in Delhi does not by itself mean the company "carries on business" there if it has no principal, registered, head, or branch office in the jurisdiction. On that basis, the Delhi forum was not available on the pleaded facts, and the plaints were returned for presentation before the proper court under Order VII Rule 10 CPC.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a company plaintiff, having no office in Delhi, could invoke territorial jurisdiction at Delhi on the basis of internet sales and transactions under Section 134(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. (ii) Whether the plaints were liable to be returned for presentation before the proper court.

Issue (i): Whether a company plaintiff, having no office in Delhi, could invoke territorial jurisdiction at Delhi on the basis of internet sales and transactions under Section 134(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.

Analysis: The statutory expression "carries on business" in Section 134(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, when applied to a corporate plaintiff, has to be read in light of Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and the principles governing corporate residence. A company cannot be treated as carrying on business at a place merely because its website is accessed there if it has no principal office, registered office, head office, or branch office at that place. The earlier understanding of internet-based business in territorial jurisdiction cases did not address this specific position concerning a corporate plaintiff with no office in the forum jurisdiction. The governing rule is that, for a company, business presence is linked to the existence of an office at the relevant place.

Conclusion: The plaintiff-company could not claim territorial jurisdiction in Delhi merely on the basis of internet transactions, and the issue was decided against the plaintiff.

Issue (ii): Whether the plaints were liable to be returned for presentation before the proper court.

Analysis: Since the suits were not maintainable in Delhi on the pleaded basis of territorial jurisdiction, the appropriate course was return of the plaints. The Court also noted that the convenient forum considerations under Sections 22 and 23 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 supported trial in a different forum having jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The plaints were ordered to be returned under Order VII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Final Conclusion: The suits could not proceed in Delhi on the plaintiff's pleaded basis of jurisdiction, and the matter was directed to be pursued before the proper court.

Ratio Decidendi: For a corporate plaintiff, "carrying on business" at a place for jurisdictional purposes requires a real office presence there; mere internet access or online transactions without such presence does not by itself confer territorial jurisdiction.

---