Judgment clarifies key issues in web-related disputes

The increased usage of web space and the absence of uniformity in the regulations followed to settle internet-related disputes have caused great confusion. In cyberspace, jurisdictional issues arise more often than anticipated and the only way to avoid this is by finding a greater means of “accessing” extra-territoriality. Indian laws have so far dealt with two sets of reasoning – cause of action and consequences. In November 2009, a division bench of Delhi High Court in Banyan Tree Holding Private Limited v A Murali Krishna Reddy and Others examined these aspects and categorically held that merely accessing a website in Delhi would not satisfy the exercise of jurisdiction by Delhi High Court.

Banyan Tree Holdings (BTH), a hospitality company in Singapore with business ventures across globe, was using the mark “Banyan Tree” in its business transactions since 1944 which over the years had become highly distinctive globally. However, BTH’s application to register its mark in India was still pending. In 2007, a Hyderabad-based township developer initiated a project entitled “Banyan Tree Retreat” on its website.

BTH raised objections, stating that the word and mark adopted by the developer were deceptively similar to that of BTH and the use of this mark by the developer was a dishonest attempt to capitalize on the reputation and goodwill of BTH. Accordingly, BTH filed a suit for injunction to restrain the developer from using the mark.

Priti Suri is the proprietor of PSA where Neeraj Dubey is an associate.