PEPFIX-NEOVITAL Row: Delhi HC Says Sun Pharma's Suit Maintainable, Cites Online Presence

The decision came in a detailed order passed by Justice Tejas Karia on November 24,2025.

Sun Pharma filed a suit seeking a permanent injunction, damages, and delivery-up against Artura Pharmaceuticals, alleging that Artura's marks “PEPFIX” and “NEOVITAL” were deceptively similar to Sun Pharma’s registered trademarks “PEPFIZ” and “REVITAL.” The plaintiff argued that Artura’s marks amounted to trademark infringement, passing off, and unfair competition.

An ex-parte injunction had already been granted on November 21, 2024, restraining Artura from selling or dealing in any products under the impugned marks.

Artura filed an application contending that the suit was wrongly instituted in Delhi, asserting that the company had no territorial connection with the jurisdiction. It stated that it is registered in Chennai, Tamil Nadu, and its manufacturing facility is located in Andhra Pradesh. The company further maintained that the products bearing the disputed marks are manufactured exclusively for export and are not sold, marketed, or offered for sale in Delhi—or anywhere else in India. Artura also emphasised that its website is purely non-commercial and does not allow any form of online transaction or product purchase.

Building on these submissions, Artura’s counsel argued that the Delhi High Court lacked territorial jurisdiction to hear the matter. They pointed out that the company’s website served only as an informational platform, with a “Contact Us” page that did not facilitate commercial dealings. The impugned products, they contended, were not available on any e-commerce portal. The reference to a third-party directory website (pharmahopers.com), in their view, was irrelevant because it functioned solely as a business directory rather than a sales platform. Counsel also noted that there was no evidence to show that any buyer in Delhi had ever attempted to purchase the disputed products, undermining any claim of jurisdiction based on online accessibility.

Artura relied on several judgments, including Banyan Tree Holdings, FedEx Corporation, and Kohinoor Seed Fields to argue that mere website accessibility in Delhi cannot create jurisdiction unless targeted commercial activity is shown.

Sun Pharma contested these arguments, asserting that the Delhi High Court indeed has territorial jurisdiction over the matter. The company pointed out that Artura Pharma has featured the mark in a nutritional supplement brochure available on its website, and further noted that the “Contact Us” page provides a mechanism through which users can write to the company and receive services via a specific feedback system.

It alleged that the mark Neovital is actively listed on the PharmaHopers website, "a third-party aggregator platform which explicitly declares its purpose as facilitating trade opportunities and promoting products and services online for the pharmaceutical industry."

The Court observed that several questions central to the dispute cannot be resolved at this preliminary stage without a thorough examination of evidence. This includes examining the actual functionality of the website, determining the nature of enquiries received by Artura Pharma through the two websites, establishing whether any such enquiries originated from Delhi, and assessing whether Delhi-based consumers have been exposed to—or misled by—the marks under question. These issues, the Court held, must be determined at the trial stage.

The Court further noted that the extent and nature of the Defendant’s online activities—specifically, publishing the nutritional supplement brochure containing the disputed marks on the website and maintaining the “Contact Us” page—were sufficient to confer jurisdiction on the Court. Accordingly, the Suit should proceed to trial rather than be summarily rejected at this early stage.

"The jurisdictional objection raised by the Defendant involves disputed questions of fact that cannot be satisfactorily resolved at this stage," said Justice Tejas Karia in an order dated November 24.

A plain reading of the suit and the documents filed with it, the Court said, reveals that part of the cause of action has arisen in Delhi because the Defendant’s products bearing the disputed marks are accessible to Delhi-based consumers through Artura Pharma’s website and the B2B marketplace PharmaHopers.

The Judge added that;

"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 (Sun Pharma) 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 concluded that the appropriate course of action is to allow the Suit to proceed to trial after the completion of pleadings and the framing of Issues. Artura’s objection to the Court’s territorial jurisdiction will be treated as a Preliminary Issue and decided after both parties have had the opportunity to submit evidence on factual questions, including the nature and functionality of the two websites, the extent of the Defendant’s activities in Delhi, whether any commercial enquiries or transactions originated from Delhi, and whether any confusion or deception occurred among consumers in Delhi, the Court said.