January 10, 2018

High Court noted that the question whether a universal website which can be viewed all over the world confers jurisdiction in the state where it's viewed, has been a matter of much debate.

The Delhi HC has ruled that mere hosting of a webpage on Facebook wouldn't confer jurisdiction in the State where such page is viewed.

Justice Vibhu Bakhru explained, “…it's clear that merely hosting a web page on Facebook wouldn't be sufficient to confer jurisdiction on a Court where defendant doesn't carry on business. Merely because Facebook is an interactive site & permits the users to offer comments or indicate if they “like what they see” on the site, wouldn't be sufficient to provide a cause of action for passing off in a jurisdiction where the defendant doesn't enter into any commercial transaction.”

The High Court was hearing an Application filed by ‘News Nation Gujarat’, praying that the passing off suit filed against it by ‘News Nation Networks Private Limited’ be dismissed as it doesn't disclose a “clear right to sue”. It had further contended that the Court didn't have jurisdiction to entertain the suit.

While the mark ‘News Nation’ isn't a registered trademark, the Plaintiff had filed a suit for passing off, alleging that the Applicant’s trade name ‘News Nation Gujarat’ was “causing grave confusion & deception among the public at large & therefore, amounts to passing off, unfair competition & unfair trade practice”. They had now defended their suit inter alia placing reliance on the Facebook page of the Applicants.

During the hearing, the High Court noted that the question whether a universal website which can be viewed all over the world confers jurisdiction in the state where it's viewed, has been a subject matter of much debate.

The Court then observed, “Maintenance of the Facebook page on a social media site can at best be representative of the defendants issuing an advertisement of their product i.e. newspaper. Although, it's stated that www.facebook.com is an interactive site, there's no allegation that any commercial transaction is carried out between users & the defendants through www.facebook.com. The allegation is merely that the users of www.facebook.com can read an article/news published & can post their comments.”

Thereafter, relying on several precedents, the Court held that it didn't have jurisdiction to entertain the plaint & listed the matter on 12th February for further proceedings.

Picture Source :