Casio India v Ashita Tele Systems

• The plaintiff, Casio India Co. Ltd, is a 100% subsidiary and sole agent in India of Casio Computer Co. Ltd, Japan, owner of the CASIO mark
• Defendant No.1, Ashita Tele Systems Pvt Ltd of Mumbai (through Avinash Johri), registered the domain name casioindia.com on 13 November 1998
• Johri was linked to Asuka Networking, a former distributor of Casio products (distribution agreement 1999 to 2000)
• The defendant used the site in connection with CASIO products and demanded Rs 20 lakh to part with the domain
• The plaintiff sued for passing off and moved for an interim injunction under Order XXXIX CPC

1. Whether the Delhi High Court had territorial jurisdiction over a defendant based in Mumbai
2. Whether the plaintiff, as the Indian subsidiary, had standing to sue
3. Whether registration and use of casioindia.com amounted to passing off warranting interim relief
4. Whether the plaintiff's delay or acquiescence barred relief

• The court had territorial jurisdiction because the defendant's website was accessible in Delhi (relying on Dow Jones v Gutnick and Info Edge)
• The plaintiff had standing as the Indian subsidiary and sole agent of the mark owner
• A prima facie case of passing off was made out: the domain name was likely to cause confusion and trade on the CASIO goodwill
• The defences of acquiescence and delay were rejected
• Defendant No.1 was restrained from using CASIO in its domain name; the registrar was to permit the defendant a domain name that did not include CASIO

Accessibility of a website in the forum state is enough, at the interim stage, to found territorial jurisdiction over a domain name dispute. A domain name serves as a business identifier; registering one that incorporates another's well-known mark, with knowledge of that mark through a past trading connection and with a demand for money, makes out a prima facie case of passing off and justifies restraining its use.