Delhi High Court
Hydac Fluidtechnik Gmbh And Anr. vs Flutec Industries on 6 August, 2013
Author: M. L. Mehta
* THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CS (OS) 1519/2013
Date of Decision: 06.08.2013
HYDAC FLUIDTECHNIK GMBH AND ANR. ...... PLAINTIFF
Through: Ms. Anju Agrawal, Advocate.
Versus
FLUTEC INDUSTRIES ...... DEFENDANT
Through:
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA
M.L. MEHTA, J. (Oral)
1. The plaintiffs have filed the present suit seeking a permanent injunction
restraining infringement, passing off of trademark, and rendition of
accounts; with respect to its trademark FLUTEC used for valves and other
hydraulic components and systems. The plaintiffs have also filed I. A. No.
12229/2013 under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 as well as I. A. No.
12230/2009 under Sec. 151 of the Code.
2. The plaintiff no.1 is a Company incorporated under the laws of Germany,
and states to be the registered proprietor of the trademark FLUTEC in India.
The plaintiff no. 2 is the Indian subsidiary of plaintiff no. 1, having its
registered office in Mumbai; trading in hydraulic components and systems
under the guidance and collaboration with plaintiff no. 1. The defendant,
Flutec Industries a.k.aFlutec Valves, is an Indian company, having its
registered office in Mumbai and is also engaged in the manufacture of
hydraulic components and systems.
3. The plaintiff alleges that the defendant is selling and offering for sale valves
under the trademark FLUTEC which were identical to the plaintiffs'
product. The plaintiffs also allege that the defendant is selling and offering
for sale the impugned goods in the city of Delhi through its interactive
website www.flutecvalves.in. The plaintiffs have approached this Court
seeking an interim injunction against the defendant on the ground that under
Sec. 20(c) of the Code, a part of the Cause of Action has arisen within the
jurisdiction of this Court, since the defendant is offering to sell the impugned
products within the territorial limits of this Court through an interactive
website. The plaintiff has sought to rely upon the decision of a Division
Bench Court in the case of Banyan Tree Holding Pvt. Ltd. v. A. Murali
Krishna Reddy & Anr. 2008 (38) PTC 288 (DEL) which has laid down the
guidelines for Courts to exercise jurisdiction on internet based transactions.
4. The Court in the Banyan Tree Case(supra) pithily summarized a three
pronged guidelines for such transactions and stipulated that a plaintiff
seeking to invoke the jurisdiction of a Court had to prima facie show the
following:
1. A plaintiff who is not carrying on business within the
territorial limits of the forum court has to show that the
defendant 'purposefully availed' itself of the jurisdiction
of the forum Court, by using a website with an intention to
conclude a commercial transaction by 'specifically
targeting' a user within the forum state. (emphasis
supplied)
2. In order to show that some part of the cause of action has
arisen in the forum state, the plaintiff has to show that the
defendant's website targeted the viewers in the forum
state, and prima facie show any commercial transaction
taken place as a result. Such commercial transaction
produced as proof must be a 'real commercial
transaction' and not a 'trap order' or 'trap transaction'
set up by the plaintiff. (emphasis supplied)
5. In the instant case, neither the plaintiffs nor the defendant reside in Delhi. In
order to obtain an interim injunction, the plaintiff has to make out a prima
facie case in accordance with the test laid down in the Banyan TreeCase
(supra).
6. The plaintiff has not been able to show that the defendant has specifically
targeted a user within the jurisdiction of this Court. Merely showing that the
website is 'interactive' in nature, enabling users in Delhi to place orders of
the impugned products, is not sufficient to establish a prima facie case in
favour of the plaintiffs. Moreover, the plaintiffs have neither placed on
record any document indicating a commercial transaction which has taken
place through the said website within the territorial limits of this Court.
7. In light of the aforementioned observations, I am of the opinion that the
plaintiff has failed to show that a part of the Cause of Action has arisen
within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, in accordance with the
guidelines laid down in the Banyan Tree Case (supra).
8. The plaint is to be returned to the plaintiffs with liberty to file the suit before
a competent Court in the appropriate forum.
9. Ordered accordingly.
M.L. MEHTA, J.
AUGUST 06, 2013
kk/rmm
