Banyan Tree Holding v A. Murali Krishna Reddy

• Banyan Tree Holding (Singapore) operated luxury resorts under "BANYAN TREE" trademark
• Defendant operated a resort in Hyderabad using "BANYAN TREE" in domain name and website
• Plaintiff sued in Delhi claiming jurisdiction because defendant's website was accessible from Delhi
• Defendant argued that mere accessibility should not confer jurisdiction

1. Whether a court has jurisdiction over trademark infringement committed through a website merely because that website is accessible from the court's territorial jurisdiction.

• Mere accessibility of a website from a jurisdiction does NOT automatically confer territorial jurisdiction
• The court must apply the "effects" or "targeting" test: Did the defendant specifically target or direct activities at the forum territory?
• Adopted the Zippo sliding scale (US) as analytical framework:
• Passive websites (information only): NO jurisdiction
• Interactive websites (commercial transactions with forum residents): jurisdiction EXISTS

In internet jurisdiction disputes, the "purposeful availment" or "targeting" test replaces the mere accessibility test. A defendant must have purposefully directed activities toward the forum territory, creating sufficient contacts to justify jurisdiction. The accessibility test would give every court worldwide jurisdiction over every website, an absurd result.