India TV Independent News Service v India Broadcast Live

• The plaintiff ran INDIA TV, a Hindi news channel intended mainly for Indian audiences
• Defendant No.1, a US company, operated the website indiatvlive.com, which had a subscription section listing India among the countries whose residents could subscribe
• The plaintiff sued in Delhi to restrain the defendants from using the mark INDIA TV as a domain name or otherwise, and obtained an ex parte interim injunction on 19 January 2007
• On 20 February 2007 Defendant No.1 filed its own suit in the District Court at Arizona, and objected that the Delhi court was not a court of competent jurisdiction or the forum conveniens

1. Whether the Delhi High Court could exercise personal jurisdiction over a foreign defendant through its website
2. Whether the defendant should be restrained from pursuing the Arizona suit
3. What interim relief should apply to the domain name

• India has no long-arm statute; the test is whether the defendant's activities have a sufficient connection with India, whether the claim arises from those activities, and whether exercising jurisdiction is reasonable (para 47)
• Mere accessibility may not be enough, and limited interactivity may also be insufficient; but a site that lets forum residents subscribe to its services stands differently (para 48)
• indiatvlive.com had a subscription section open to Indian residents, and the damage to the plaintiff's goodwill would be in India, so the court could exercise personal jurisdiction (paras 49 to 51)
• The defendant was restrained from proceeding with the Arizona suit
• The interim order was modified: the defendant could use the domain name with a prominent disclaimer of any connection with INDIA TV, and had to file statements of revenue earned in India

In internet cases an Indian court asks whether the foreign defendant's activities have a sufficient connection with India. Passive accessibility may not suffice, but an interactive website that targets forum residents by letting them subscribe, combined with harm to the plaintiff felt in the forum, is a sufficient connection for personal jurisdiction.