Delhi High Court Declines To Return Plaint In Sun Pharma's Trademark Suit Against Artura, Says Cause Of Action Partly Arose In Delhi
The Delhi High Court has refused to return the plaint in a trademark infringement and passing off suit filed by Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd., holding on a prima facie basis that part of the cause of action arose in Delhi through the defendant-Artura Pharmaceuticals' online presence. A single bench of Justice Tejas Karia, in an order dated November 24, 2025, held that the question...
The Delhi High Court has refused to return the plaint in a trademark infringement and passing off suit filed by Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd., holding on a prima facie basis that part of the cause of action arose in Delhi through the defendant-Artura Pharmaceuticals' online presence.
A single bench of Justice Tejas Karia, in an order dated November 24, 2025, held that the question of territorial jurisdiction involves issues of fact that must be examined at trial. The court said the suit could not be thrown out at the outset.
Sun Pharma has sued Artura over its use of the marks PEPFIX and NEOVITAL, which Sun claims are deceptively similar to its registered marks PEPFIZ and REVITAL. The court had granted an ex parte ad interim injunction in Sun Pharma's favour in November 2024.
Artura filed an application under Order VII Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code seeking “return of plaint.” A request for return of plaint means the defendant asks the court to send the case back to the plaintiff on the ground that the court does not have the territorial jurisdiction to hear it, so the plaintiff can file it in the appropriate court.
Artura argued that it is based in Chennai with manufacturing in Andhra Pradesh, that its products are manufactured only for export and that neither its website nor the third party directory relied upon by Sun Pharma functions as an interactive commercial platform aimed at consumers in Delhi.
Sun Pharma relied on material showing a 'Contact Us' page on Artura's website, a downloadable nutritional supplement brochure containing the impugned marks and a screenshot of a third party listing displaying the mark NEOVITAL with an enquiry form. Sun Pharma pleaded that these online features made Artura's products accessible to consumers in Delhi and had caused confusion and injury in Delhi, thereby giving rise to part of the cause of action within the Court's territorial jurisdiction.
Applying the demurrer standard, which requires the court to assume that the averments in the plaint are correct when deciding an application seeking return of plaint, the High Court accepted Sun Pharma's pleaded facts solely for examining jurisdiction.
The court referred to the ruling in Banyan Tree Holding (P) Limited v. A. Murali Krishna Reddy on internet based jurisdiction. It held that the online features alleged by Sun Pharma, including the Contact Us invite, the downloadable brochure and the interactive enquiry form on a third party listing, could amount to purposeful availment of the Delhi forum based on the material pleaded.
It stressed that whether Artura's website is sufficiently interactive to result in commercial transactions with customers in Delhi and whether any confusion or injury actually occurred in Delhi are mixed questions of law and fact that require evidence.
It observed, “The true nature and extent of the Defendant's online activities, the purpose and effect of maintaining product information containing the Impugned Marks and inviting the consumers to contact the Defendant for availing services of the Defendant amounting to sufficient purposeful availment to establish jurisdiction resulting in actual confusion or injury to Plaintiff in Delhi would require detailed examination after the trial stage rather than summary dismissal at this threshold stage under Order VII Rule 10 of the CPC,” the court said.
Consequently, the court dismissed Artura's application to return the plaint and directed that the jurisdiction issue be framed as a preliminary issue to be decided after both parties have an opportunity to lead evidence.
Case Title: Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. v. Artura Pharmaceuticals P. Ltd.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1617
Case Number: CS(COMM) 1038/2024
For the Plaintiff: Mr. Sachin Gupta with Mr. Rohit Pradhan, Mr. Prashansa Singh, Mr. Ajay Kumar, Mr. Adarsh Aggarwal & Ms. Archana, Advocates (through VC).
For the Defendant: Mr. Jayant Kumar & Ms. Ruchi Singh, Advocates.