Jurisdiction: An Issue on Internet

Introduction

The principle of ‘jurisdiction’ refers to the authority vested in an appropriate court in every legal system to hear or decide a case. legal justice delivery system functions by systems known as “courts,” and the starting point for such functionality is “jurisdiction,” through which the court’s decision is validated as a proper “judgement” to be carried out in compliance with the law.

The conventional approach to jurisdiction requires a court to determine whether it has territorial, pecuniary, or subject matter jurisdiction to hear a dispute. The issue of ‘territorial’ authority becomes more complex when it comes to the internet, owing to the fact that it is borderless. As a result, although there are no borders between regions within a country, there are no borders between countries as well. The computer as a physical entity that stores data has given way to ‘internet,[1]‘ where data is stored and shared to and from the ‘internet.’ So, where is this ‘place’ where the data is ‘stored’?

IP rights have a strong regional restriction. When a trademark, patent, or copyright is registered, it serves to prohibit anyone from infringing on certain rights within the jurisdiction of the state   It prohibits those outside the state’s territory from infringing on those rights within the state’s territory.

The implementation of such laws is not a concern where the goods are tangible and purchased and sold within the jurisdiction. However, a holder of IP rights granted immunity by a state cannot enforce those rights in a foreign state whose laws do not recognize the activity as an infringement and whose laws do not recognize the activity as an infringement. Furthermore, all of the above assumptions shift in the light of internet transactions, and much more so when the goods or services are virtual rather than physical. Besides which, in a borderless cyber environment, goods and services can be easily exchanged across countries in a matter of seconds. It then exacerbates the problem, as seen in the following example:

A copyrighted song in MP3 digital format is the product. The transaction will start with the product being ‘uploaded’ in one territory, stored on a server in another, advertised for sale on a service provider’s website in a third country, ‘bought’ by a click-and-pay service in yet another territory, and finally ‘downloaded’ in yet another territory. The entire transaction is revealed to be a sale of a pirated product, which is a violation of the song’s copyright per se. Is it possible for the courts of any of these regions to hear the case?

From the perspective of both the court that can fairly claim jurisdiction and the court that can’t, jurisdiction is rooted in territoriality. The legislation in the America had to account for all cases, i.e., cross-border and cross-state internet transactions. When it comes to international transactions, the regulatory problems are naturally more complicated. However, the criteria used by courts to establish or deny jurisdiction in both cases have remained relatively consistent.

The Delhi High Court was concerned with an inter-state matter of jurisdiction rather than a foreign dispute in the Banyan Tree Holding case.[2] Surprisingly, the plaintiff was a multinational corporation that sought an injunction against the suspected trademark violator in an Indian case. The court largely observed the evolution of common law in the United States, the United Kingdom, and a few other Commonwealth countries. For India, an indigenous law has yet to be created.

The failure of countries to efficiently control internet transactions originating or terminating within their border’s stems from the technology’s inherent existence. Even if it was assumed that the physical position of the device from which the transaction originates and the one where it ends could be fixed, technology would circumvent or ‘mask’ that as well.

The concept of “sovereign equality under international law” is invoked when it comes to determining the relevant law. In the more conventional mode of two-country conflict settlement.

The sphere of private international law is intended to find a solution when a conflict arises between institutions and individuals from different countries. There is yet to be established a common law in the field of IPR violations and infringement across borders. The TRIPS Agreement is not the area’s “uniform” rule. Private international law remains a viable option. Since a State’s power to administer or execute its laws does not extend beyond its territorial jurisdiction, the foundational concept of sovereign equality in international law necessitates this legal fiction. In conflicts involving on-line operations, certain questions of jurisdiction are unavoidable, as the lack of territorial precision in an on-line setting inevitably leads to geographically intermingled jurisdiction. As a result, domestic courts dealing with these conflicts would have to first localise the transaction before taking jurisdiction. The question is whether domestic courts can establish localization mechanisms that have unintended spillover effects in the international trade regime in relation to the TRIPS Agreement’s benefits and burdens. The need for local courts to ‘localise’ the proceedings.

Position in USA 

Evolution of Tests

This part will cover the development of the law first in the USA, through various test that are –

• Minimum contacts Test
• Purposeful availment Test
• The zippo ‘sliding scale’ Test
• The ‘effects’ Test.

• Minimum Contacts Test-

States in the United States have long-arm provisions that give them authority over non-residents, and this authority must be exercised in accordance with constitutional due process. In summary, a US court must conduct a two-step investigation to exercise personal jurisdiction over a defendant.[3] To begin, the court must examine the applicable state long-arm law to see whether it allows personal jurisdiction to be exercised. The court would then apply the principles of the United States Constitution’s Due Process Clause. Shaffer v. Heitner[4] held that personal jurisdiction under the Due Process Clause is based on “the relationship among the defendant, the forum, and the litigation.”

Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz[5] held that physical presence within the forum is not necessary to assert personal authority over a non-resident defendant. In Hanson v. Denckla[6], the plaintiff must prove that the defendant has intentionally oriented its actions against citizens of the forum state, or that the defendant has otherwise “purposefully availed itself of the privilege of performing activities within the forum State, thereby invoking the advantages and safeguards of its rules.”

The court is said to have “specific jurisdiction” when a plaintiff’s argument is relevant to or emerges out of the defendant’s interactions with the forum. The plaintiff must pass a two-part test in order for specific jurisdiction to be properly exercised under the Due Process Clause. First, the complainant must prove that the defendant has ample “minimum contacts” with the forum under the Constitution. The plaintiff’s cause of action must arise out of or result from the out-of-state defendant’s interactions with the forum, or the defendant must have purposefully geared its actions related to the plaintiff’s cause of action against the forum or otherwise taken advantage of the privilege of performing activities in the forum, for “minimum contacts” to be satisfied.

Second, in order to exercise jurisdiction, the court must decide, in its sole discretion, that doing so would be consistent with “traditional conceptions of fair play and substantial justice,” as stated in International Shoe Co. v. Washington[7]. This case was thought to have performed “two related but distinct functions.” The first was to relieve the defendant of the pressure of having to litigate in a remote or inconvenient place. The second goal was to make sure the states didn’t “exceed the bounds placed on them by their role as coequal sovereigns in a federal system.”

The conventional minimum contacts method, on the other hand, is restricted to the type of case where International Shoe is most specifically applied, namely long-term commercial transactions. It does not apply to cases involving remote torts or products transported after purchase, as well as cases involving internet defamation and other non-commercial transactions.

• Purposeful Availment Test-

 In Hanson v. Denckla[8], the US Supreme Court emphasised the defendant’s intentional actions. The facts were that in an action opposing a Florida resident’s appointment of property for which the Delaware Corporation was trustee, a Florida court claimed jurisdiction over a Delaware trust company. After the trust was created, the settler relocated from Pennsylvania to Florida. Except for regular correspondence with the settler, the trust company had not solicited or conducted business in Florida. The US Supreme Court ruled that the Florida court lacked jurisdiction because the trust company had not purposefully entered into business in Florida.

It was only linked to the state because the settler moved to Florida on his own after the contractual relationship was formed. The Supreme Court held in Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz[9] that the defendant did not have to be physically present within the forum court’s jurisdiction, and that the forum court can exercise jurisdiction over a non-resident where an alleged injury occurs out of or relates to defendant’s conduct that are “purposefully directed” against residents of the forum state. It was decided that the defendant’s ‘random’ or ‘fortuitous’ communications in the forum state would not result in ‘purposeful availment.’ The plaintiff must prove that the contracts were formed as a result of the defendant’s “conduct that established a significant link with the forum state.”

He must have participated in “important activities” within the forum state or established “continuing obligations” with forum state residents. The defendant’s twenty-year association with the complainant “reinforced his intentional affiliation with the forum state and the fair foreseeability of litigation there,” according to the evidence.

In Cybersell, Inc. v. Cybersell. Inc.[10], An Arizona corporation that sold commercial services over the internet under the service mark “Cybersell” filed an infringement suit against a Florida corporation that provided web-page construction services over the internet. The Florida Corporation created a web page with a logo at the top consisting of ‘CyberSell’ over a representation of the planet earth, a caption underneath ‘Professional Services for the World WideWeb,’ a local phone number, and a hypertext connection allowing the internet surfer to introduce herself as part of its marketing campaign. That link invited a company not on the web but interested in getting on the web to e-mail the Florida Corporation for further information. Arizona had a long arm statute that permitted a court to exercise personal jurisdiction over parties whether found within or outside the state to the maximum extent permitted by the court in the United States.

The Court of Appeals determined that Cybersell FL (the Florida Corporation) had done nothing more than post an essentially passive home page on the internet under the name ‘CyberSell,’ which Cybersell AZ (the Arizona Corporation) was in the process of registering as a federal service mark. Although there’s no doubt that anybody, anywhere might access that home page and learn about the services on offer, we don’t see how that fact alone can be used to conclude that Cybersell FL targeted its marketing efforts specifically at Arizona residents.

“The interactivity of its web page is restricted to obtaining the browser’s name and address, as well as an indication of interest-signing up for the service is not a choice, and no one from Arizona has done so,” it was also noted. On the Internet, no money exchanged hands from (or through) Arizona.” Cybersell FL’s contacts were found to be inadequate to create “purposeful availment.”

• The Zippo ‘Sliding Scale’ Test-

 In Zippo Mfg. Co. v. Zippo Dot Com[11], Inc., the court sought to extend the purposeful availment test. The plaintiff, Zippo Manufacturing, was a cigarette lighter manufacturer based in Pennsylvania. The defendant was a California company that operated an internet news service and a website. It only had a presence in California. Viewers from other states had to go to the defendant’s website and fill out an online application to subscribe to the defendant’s news service. Payment was made by credit card over the phone or over the internet. Around 3000 of the defendant’s customers were Pennsylvania residents who had signed up for the service by visiting the defendant’s website and filling out an online application. In addition, the defendant had made arrangements with seven Pennsylvania internet service providers to allow their customers to access the defendant’s news service. In a Pennsylvania court, the defendant was accused of trademark dilution, violation, and false designation. After going through the history of the law up to that point, the District Court made the following observations:

If a court attempts to exercise general or special jurisdiction over a non-resident applicant, the Constitutional limits on the exercise of personal jurisdiction vary[12]. When a non-resident defendant engages in “systematic and persistent” conduct in the forum state, a court may exercise personal jurisdiction over the defendant for non-forum related activities.[13] In the absence of general jurisdiction, special jurisdiction allows a court to exercise personal jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant for forum-related actions if the defendant and the forum have a relationship that meets the ‘minimum connections’ criteria International Shoe Co. v. Washington^[14], and its progeny.^[15]

The Oregon district court refused to exercise jurisdiction over a South Carolina company that marketed goods both offline and online in Millennium Enterprises Inc. v. Millennium Music L. P[16]. The court believed that ‘something more’ was expected than simply demonstrating that the website was interactive. The defendant must be shown to have completed any transaction in Oregon and to have made “deliberate and frequent communications” with Oregon through the website in order for it to be determined that they could have expected to be hauled into an Oregon court.

• The Effects Test and ‘Intentional targeting’

The difficulties encountered by using the Zippo sliding scale test paved the way for the use of the ‘effects’ test. As a result, the courts have shifted from a subjective territoriality test to an empirical territoriality or “effects” test, under which the forum court can exercise jurisdiction if it can be shown that the defendant’s website has an impact on the forum state. In other words, the plaintiff must have suffered some kind of damage or injury while on the territory of the forum state. Since the existence of the internet ensures that some impact of a website can be felt in several jurisdictions, courts have introduced a “tighter” version of the “effects” test, known as the “intentio” test. The ‘effects’ test was first evolved in Calder v. Jones^[17].

Since Justice Rhenquist’s unanimous opinion in Calder provides very little explanation, it’s critical to concentrate on how and why the Court arrived at its conclusion. For starters, the case involved defamation, which is described as harm to a person’s reputation in the community. As a result, the tort’s concept is influenced by the “culture.”[18] Second, the Calder defendants were accused of behaving “maliciously and with intent to kill, defame, and shame” Jones and cause her “humiliation and emotional and physical distrainment,” probably because California is one of the jurisdictions that requires malice as an aspect of libel when a public figure (such as television actress Jones) is involved.

As a result, the author and editor were found to have ‘expressly directed’ their tortuous acts at California, knowing that the article would have a detrimental effect on the respondent and that they should have fairly expected that the brunt of that injury would be felt by the defendant in the state where she lived and worked.

Yahoo! Case

Calder’s effects test has been put to the test, with mixed results. The Yahoo! case[19] is one of the most well-known cases in which the effects doctrine was applied by a French court.

While browsing the internet, a French Jew came across Nazi memorabilia for sale on a Yahoo!-hosted website. The selling of Nazi memorabilia in France was a criminal offence under French law. Although the Yahoo! France website did not host a similar web page, anyone in France could access it on the Yahoo! website hosted in the United States. LICRA, a group dedicated to combating bigotry and anti-Semitism, and the Union of Jewish Students in France (UJEF) have filed a lawsuit against Yahoo! and Yahoo! France in French courts.

In order to prevent internet users in France from accessing the unacceptable products offered for auction sale on Yahoo US’s website, a French court ordered Yahoo! to block access to its US website from France. Via a series of instruments for which experts were consulted, it was discovered that this was technologically feasible. As a result, it dismissed Yahoo claim’s that the French court’s order could not be enforced outside of France. To establish jurisdiction, the French court effectively used the effects test. Yahoo! had violated French law by allowing internet users in France to engage in the selling of such items, according to the court.

Despite the fact that the website could be accessed from anywhere in the world, the French court determined that it had harmed the two plaintiffs in France. The simple fact that the objectionable material could be downloaded did not decide the issue of jurisdiction. The impact on the general public in France who could access Yahoo website ‘s and who were threatened was also considered by the French court. As a result of the fact that Yahoo! showed advertisements in French to visitors on its US-based server and that Yahoo! France offered a connection to the US-based Yahoo! server, the court concluded that Yahoo! intended its services to reach people in France and also intended to profit from the visitors from France to its US based website.

Position in India

India maintains “long arm” jurisdiction over foreign parties who perform criminal actions outside of India that have an effect on a computer information system in India under the Information Technology Act of 2000. A court may order the seizure of computer equipment suspected of being used in the commission of a computer crime by law enforcement authorities. If more than one criminal statute has been broken, it is possible for more than one sentence to be imposed for the same wrongful actions.

Section 75 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 deals with extraterritorial application of the law, the section states that the provisions of the Act will apply to

(a)Any person irrespective of nationality

(b)An offence or contravention committed outside India

The offence or violation must have been committed against an Indian device, computer system, or computer network. As a result, the Act has introduced the common jurisdiction principle to cover both cyber contraventions and cyber offences. It’s worth noting that uniform authority over specific offences is often the product of widespread criticism of such crimes, which necessitates cooperation to combat them, as the generally agreed Cyber Crime Convention demonstrates.

The case of Casio India Co. Limited v. Ashita Tele Systems Pvt. Limited[20] involved a passing off proceeding in which the defendant operated out of Bombay. The defendant had gotten the domain name www.casioindia.com registered, and defendant no. 2 was the Registrar with whom the domain name had been registered.

The plaintiff, on the other hand, claimed to be a wholly owned subsidiary of Casio Computer Ltd., Japan (Casio Japan), the registered owner of the trade mark “Casio” in India, which was used on a wide range of electronic and other goods. He had a large number of domain names registered in India, including ‘CasioIndiaCompany.com,’ ‘CasioIndia.org,’ and ‘CasioIndia.net,’ among others. The above domain names were acquired by Defendant No. 1 when it was under a distributorship arrangement with the plaintiff.

After citing the judgments in Rediff Communication Ltd. v. Cyber Booth[21] and Dow Jones & Co. Inc. v. Gutnick[22], the learned Judge concluded that “once access to the impugned domain name website may be obtained from anywhere else, the jurisdiction in such matters cannot be limited to the territorial limits of the defendant’s residence.” It was not necessary to show that “any real fraud took place at Delhi,” according to the learned single Judge, since a mere possibility of deception, whereby an ordinary citizen is likely to be misled or mistaken, was sufficient to entertain an action for passing off.

In India TV Independent News Service Pvt Ltd V. India Broadcast Live LLC[23], it was also held that the mere fact that a website is available in a specific location might not be enough for the courts of that location to exercise personal jurisdiction over the website’s owners. The situation would be different if the website was not only passive but also interactive, allowing browsers to not only access the contents but also subscribe to the services provided by the owners.

The Karnataka High Court heard Prestege Developers v. Prestige Estates Projects Pvt. Ltd[24]., a passing off case brought by Prestige Estates against Prestege Property Developers. The defendant’s building operation was limited to Kerala, according to the Single Judge. It was also noted that, despite the fact that online booking was indicated, the transaction would not take place in Bangalore, and hence would not be a part of the cause of action in terms of passing off, because even if the defendants were to pass off their property based on the plaintiff’s reputation as alleged, the same would only take place in Kerala.[25]

The current legal situation in India can be summarized. A plaintiff who does not have the benefit of the limited long arm provision of either section 134 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999[26] or section 62 of the Copyright Act, 1957[27] will be unable to persuade a court to exercise jurisdiction over a defendant hosting a website containing the material allegedly infringing on the plaintiff’s IP rights unless it can be shown that the defendant targeted its interactive website to the plaintiff’s IP rights.

Furthermore, a lone trap transaction does not show the defendant’s “purposeful” targeting of the forum state or “aiming” at specific customers there. The defendant would have to demonstrate a more systematic pattern of behavior over a series of transactions. It could be argued that the test established in Banyan Tree[28] would be ineffective in solving problems in a different factual setting and context, such as slander or cyber pornography. However, Banyan Tree does not address the contexts for which additional tests would be needed. Nevertheless, the courts in India will have to guard against over-protection of local interests and adopt a balanced approach to ensure that a middle path is found in individual cases.

Internet Jurisdiction

Jurisdictions face a significant problem in the sense of internet or cyber transactions in countries such as the United States, where there is a clash of laws due to the fact that laws are not universal in the world and states have their own laws. As we’ve seen, the “Internet” and the transactions that take place on it include several parties from different countries.

Let us take for an example of simple transaction in Internet of ordering a book. A orders a book advertised for a price X in a website B. The Website is operated by Y who resides in another country C. The website is launched through a server located in country D operated by Z. A finds his credit card statement showing money paid but did not receive the book and now decides to take auction. In this case Y who operates the site is in a neighbouring country and implicates the server provider Z for faulty configuration, which has caused the problem to A.  How, does A proceed to sue for his losses?  Or in another example the Police in Hyderabad come across objectionable material in a website which is launched by someone in Pakistan but hoisted from Italy through a server? Under which jurisdiction can the offence be brought?

Those who contend that jurisdiction is a major concern in Cyberspace and the Internet argue that the conventional method of determining jurisdiction is difficult to apply in Internet transactions. In a typical contract, jurisdiction is determined by determining 1. the defendant’s residence and 2. the location of the cause of action. They claim that understanding jurisdiction is difficult using illustrations like the ones above. Many who conduct business over the Internet, in particular, can find themselves in a variety of jurisdictions if they are sued by customers all over the world. In the other hand, it is often argued that in situations where service providers and intermediaries fail to protect the hapless customer, the consumer would be left defenceless.

Many jurists and cyber law experts claim that the complexities of jurisdictions are exaggerated and can be overcome using simpler yardsticks such as current jurisdictional principles. They claim that the question of jurisdiction is either wrongly or maliciously exaggerated, since all transactions take place in physical locations with physical sellers and buyers, and the only differences are the ties. They claim that, first and foremost, the majority of complications can be avoided if the contracting parties expressly agree on the applicable rule.

Others counter that it is ultimately up to the pattern of court decisions to determine the question of jurisdiction, and that private international law has no relevant and positive role to play. In this context, foreign attempts at jurisdiction in cyberspace become more relevant, as will be discussed in the following modules.

Jurisdiction and IT Act 2000

On the jurisdiction of the Internet or cyberspace IT Act of 2000 section 13 is of relevance. The sub-sections (3) (4) and (5) deal with the cause of action clause, which is of significance in Internet transactions to determine the jurisdiction.

S 13 (3)- Save as otherwise agreed to between the originator and the addressee, an electronic record is deemed to be dispatched at the place where the originator has his place of business, and is deemed to be received at the place where the addressee has his place of business.

S 13 (4) –The provisions of sub-section (2) shall apply notwithstanding that the place where the computer resource is located may be different from the place where the electronic record is deemed to have been received under the sub-section (3)

S 13 (5)- For the purposes of this section: –

(a) If the originator or the addressee has more than one place of business, the principal place of business shall be the place of business;

(b) If the originator or the addressee does not have a place of business, his usual place of residence shall be deemed to be the place of business;

(c) “Usual place of residence” in relation to a body corporate, means the place where it is registered.”

The Section 75 of the Information Technology Act 2000 read so:

Act to apply for offence or contravention committed outside India

India recognizes the values of private international law. If more than one court has jurisdiction to try their case, the parties may choose to select one or more competent courts to resolve their disputes. The parties are bound by the forum selection provision if they specifically agree in their own arrangement that their dispute will be heard by a specific court. Jurisdiction, of course, refers to three different types of power: legislative, adjudicative, and enforcement. The first is primarily concerned with a government’s ability to impose and prescribe criminal and regulatory sanctions; the second is concerned with the courts’ ability to hear disputes, particularly civil disputes; and the third is concerned with a government’s ability to compel compliance with its rules, regulations, orders, and judgments.

Since a person can access a website from anywhere on the planet, the internet can be considered multijurisdictional. It may also be considered a jurisdictional problem from the user’s point of view.

Conclusion

Unlike the United States, Indian courts are not regularly faced with the question of jurisdiction in cyberspace cases. The Delhi High Court held in Casio India Co. Ltd v. Ashita Tele Systems Pvt Ltd[29] that accessing a website from Delhi is sufficient to invoke the Court’s territorial jurisdiction. In India TV Independent News Service Ptv Ltd V. India Broadcast Live LLC[30] , it was also held that the mere fact that a website is available in a specific location might not be enough for the courts of that location to exercise personal jurisdiction over the website’s owners. The situation would be different if the website was not only passive but also interactive, allowing browsers to not only access the contents but also subscribe to the services provided by the owners.

To begin with, cyberspace is a continuation of physical space. Since network boundaries intersect and surpass national borders, existing Internet infrastructure creates uncertainty for sovereign territories. Even then, since the relationship between technology and law is complex, the evolution of the cyber world’s technical infrastructure is entangled with sovereign jurisdiction.

In the current climate, where cybercrime is on the rise, a broad-based convention dealing with criminal substantive law, criminal procedural issues, and international criminal law procedures and agreements is urgently needed. Without adequate means and methods of implementation, the IT Act of 2000 will be crippled. To resolve the challenges, appropriate changes to the 1973 Code of Criminal Procedure are needed. Furthermore, it is important to remember that India currently lacks an adequate extradition law to deal with crimes committed over the Internet, that may occur in cases of cybercrime. To resolve this issue, India should sign and ratify the Convention on Cybercrime. This action will go a long way toward settling jurisdictional disputes that can occur in cybercrime cases.

About the Author: Aryan Rakesh is a student at Symbiosis Law School, Pune.

Note: The views in this article are personal only.

End Notes

[1] The notional environment in which communication over computer networks occurs.

[2] Banyan Tree Holding (P) Ltd. v. A. Murali Krishna Reddy & Anr., CS(OS) 894/2008 (High Court of Delhi, 23 November 2009) (India).

[3] A state law that allows the state to exercise jurisdiction over an out-of-state defendant, provided that the prospective defendant has sufficient minimum contacts with the forum state.

[4] Shaffer v. Heitner 433 U.S. 186 (1977).

[5] Shaffer v. Heitner  471 U.S. 462 1985).

[6] Hanson v. Denckla 357 U.S. 235 (1985).

[7] International Shoe Co. v. Washington 326 U.S. 310 (1945).

[8] Hanson v. Denckla 357 U.S. 235 (1958).

[9] Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz 471 U.S. 462 (1985).

[10] Cybersell, Inc. v. Cybersell. Inc  130 F.3d 414 (9th Cir. 1997).

[11] Zippo Mfg. Co. v. Zippo Dot Com 952 F. Supp. 1119 (W.D. Pa. 1997).

[12] Mellon, 960 F.2d at 1221.

[13] Helicopteos Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408.

[14] Shoe Co. v. Washington 326 U.S. 310.

[15] Mellon, 960 F.2d at 1221.

[16] Desktop Technologies v. Colourworks Reproduction & Designs Inc., 1999 WL 98572 (E.D. Pa. 1999).

[17] Calder v. Jones 465 U.S. 783 (1984).

[18] the essence or most serious part of a complaint or accusation.

[19] Tribunal de grande instance [T.G.I.] [ordinary court of original jurisdiction] Paris,

[20] Casio India Co. Limited v. Ashita Tele Systems Pvt. Limited  A.I.R. 2000 Bom. 27 (India).

[21] Rediff Communication Ltd. v. Cyber Booth (AIR 2000 Bom 27)

[22]  Dow Jones & Co. Inc. v. Gutnick (2002) H.C.A. 56 (Austl.).

[23] India TV Independent News Service Pvt Ltd V. India Broadcast Live LLC (2007 35 PTC 177 Delhi)

[24] Karnataka High Court heard Prestege Developers v. Prestige Estates Projects Pvt. Ltd CS (OS) 1714/2001

[25] Tribunal de grande instance [T.G.I.] [ordinary court of original jurisdiction] Paris, May 22, 2000 and November

[26] MFA 13696/2006 (High Court of Karnataka, 2^nd December 2009) (India).

[27] MFA 4954/2006 (High Court of Karnataka, 2^nd December 2009) (

[28] MFA 4954 & 13696/2006 (High Court of Karnataka, 2^nd December 2009) (India); see also Sholay Media Entertainment & Anr. v. Yogesh Patel & Ors. CS (OS) 1714/2001 (High Court of Delhi, 27^th January 2010) (India).

[29] 2003 27 PTC 265 Delhi.

[30] India TV Independent News Service Ptv Ltd V. India Broadcast Live LLC  (2007 35 PTC 177 Delhi),