Sushil Kumar T/A Da Polo & Anr. Vs. The Polo/Lauren Company L.P.

In a recent decision, the Delhi High Court addressed a challenge brought by Sushil Kumar, trading as Da Polo and another petitioner (“Petitioners”) against an order of the Commercial Court, which had refused to reject a trademark and copyright infringement suit filed by The Polo/Lauren Company L.P. (“Respondent”).

The Respondent, proprietor of the globally renowned marks POLO, RALPH LAUREN, and formative variants, initiated a suit seeking a permanent injunction against the Petitioners’ use of the mark/label “DA POLO” for identical goods. The Respondent alleged that the Petitioners were advertising and selling products bearing the infringing marks through their website, WWW.DAPOLO.IN, and e-commerce platforms, such as Amazon and Flipkart.

The Petitioners filed an application under Order VII Rules 10 and 11 CPC, contending that the plaint disclosed no cause of action, was undervalued, and that the Commercial Court lacked territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction, since their principal places of business were in Sonipat, Haryana and Rohini, New Delhi. They further argued that mere accessibility of a website could not vest jurisdiction in the Delhi court.

The Commercial Court rejected the application, holding that the Respondent had made sufficient pleadings of cause of action within its jurisdiction, including screenshots of infringing products available in Delhi through interactive platforms. The Petitioners’ objections on pecuniary jurisdiction had earlier been dismissed and were not pressed again.

On revision, the High Court reiterated that while exercising supervisory jurisdiction, interference is warranted only in cases of patent lack of jurisdiction. It noted that the plaint must be read as correct at this stage and that online interactivity and availability of products to Delhi consumers established purposeful targeting and a prima facie cause of action. The Court also agreed with the Commercial Court’s reliance on precedents holding that virtual availability of goods is akin to physical presence in the market.

Accordingly, the Court upheld the Commercial Court’s order, dismissed the Petitioners’ objections of forum shopping and lack of jurisdiction, and rejected the petition as being devoid of merit.

Sushil Kumar T/A Da Polo & Anr vs The Polo/ Lauren Company L.P