Court decides jurisdictional issues in internet cases

0
1143
LinkedIn
Facebook
Twitter
Whatsapp
Telegram
Copy link

In a recent, elaborate and comprehensive decision in Banyan Tree Holding v A Murali Krishna Reddy & Anr, the division bench of Delhi High Court has settled recurring questions concerning accessibility of websites and justification of a court’s territorial jurisdiction in proceedings against the owners of websites.

The plaintiff, BT Holdings, a hospitality company registered in Singapore, claimed to be a part of a group of companies involved in the hospitality business. Since 1994 it adopted and used the word mark “Banyan Tree” and the banyan tree device. It had also maintained the websites www.banyantree.com and www.banayantreespa.com since 1996, both of which were accessible in India.

Internet_conceptIn October 2007 the plaintiff learned that the defendants, being township developers based in Hyderabad, had initiated work on a project under the name “Banyan Tree Retreat”. Accordingly, the present suit was filed by BT Holdings seeking an ex parte interim injunction against the alleged passing off and dilution of the “banyan tree” mark by the defendant on their website, www.makprojects.com/banyantree, as well as a rendition of accounts.

You must be a subscribersubscribersubscribersubscriber to read this content, please subscribesubscribesubscribesubscribe today.

For group subscribers, please click here to access.
Interested in group subscription? Please contact us.

你需要登录去解锁本文内容。欢迎注册账号。如果想阅读月刊所有文章,欢迎成为我们的订阅会员成为我们的订阅会员

已有集团订阅,可点击此处继续浏览。
如对集团订阅感兴趣,请联络我们

The legislative and regulatory update is compiled by Nishith Desai Associates, a Mumbai-based law firm. The authors can be contacted at nishith@nishithdesai.com. Readers should not act on the basis of this information without seeking professional legal advice.

LinkedIn
Facebook
Twitter
Whatsapp
Telegram
Copy link