Forum Shopping or Territorial Nexus? Delhi High Court Revisits Jurisdiction in Online IP disputes
4 minutes ago
7 min read
INTRODUCTION
In order to file any plaint, suit or petition before any Court, Tribunal, Commission or any other forum, one has to first take into consideration the territorial jurisdiction of that form, that is, to what all territories does the power of the forum extend to. In Latin, this is referred to as ‘extra territorium jus dicenti impune non paretur’, which means that the authority of the Judge stops at the border. Therefore, any Court, Tribunal, Commission, etc. cannot decide on any matter that falls beyond that territorial jurisdiction.
But how does one get to decide as to what is the territorial jurisdiction of a forum. For this purpose, Sections 15 to 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) provides the conditions in which a Court shall have territorial jurisdiction over your matter. As a rule, one can file a plaint, suit or petition where either the subject matter of such matter is situated, or the Defendant resides, or any cause of action has arisen. While this is easy to determine in the physical realm, the difficulty begins the moment a cause of action arises online. All the rules applicable to the physical realm begin to fall, and an obvious ambiguity arises, that is, where to institute one’s case.
In the recent past, there has been a trend amongst the Petitioners and Plaintiffs to institute their case in whichever forum they feel is most convenient to them, a phenomenon loosely referred to as ‘forum shopping’. This forum shopping is largely prevalent in IP disputes, where showing that the cause of action arose online, the Petitioners and Plaintiffs choose the High Court of their own choice to seek the best possible remedy. Delhi High Court, which has a dedicated IP Division and a substantial number of judicial precedents on IP matters, has thus become a common choice of these applicants. However, this also means that an imbalance has been created in the system, as one Court has been overburdened with all IP matters, and other High Courts are unable to develop their jurisprudence on those matters due to lack of cases being instituted there.
Such an imbalance has been a subject of study in various previous rulings like the Banyan Tree Holding (P) Ltd. v. A. Murali Krishna Reddy.[1] At present the same issue was first heard by a single judge bench of Delhi High Court in Hindustan Unilever Limited v. Kwick Living (I) Private Limited and further referred to a Division Bench for final decision. Herein, the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court on September 2, 2026 has ruled that the Delhi High Court possessed territorial jurisdiction in the present matter, placing reliance on the Defendant’s admitted business presence in Delhi and the display of impugned hoardings within the territory.[2]
BACKGROUND
The Plaintiff, a multi-national conglomerate, sought injunctive relief against the Defendant for running an advertisement campaign “War on What’s Hidden”, which was allegedly making unsubstantiated and misleading claims against the Plaintiff’s products ‘Vim’ and ‘Surf Excel’ and disparaging these products. The Plaintiff claimed the advertisement campaign being run on billboards, various social media platforms and Defendant’s website. At the very stage of issuance of summons, the Defendant raised the objection that the Delhi High Court had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the said matter.
Given the above circumstances, the Court decided to hear the issue pertaining to territorial jurisdiction first before dealing with the merits of the case. For this purpose, primarily three statutory provisions were referred by the Court:
● Section 134, Trade Marks Act, 1999;
● Section 62, Copyright Act, 1957; and
● Section 20, CPC.
Thereby, submissions of both the parties were sought on the said issue.
DEFENDANT’S SUBMISSIONS
It was argued that the registered offices of both the Plaintiff and the Defendant are in Mumbai, Maharashtra (which falls under the territorial jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court). Further, the Defendant argued that the Plaintiff had themselves in the plaint conformed to the allegedly infringing hoarding being present in Mumbai and none in Delhi. The Defendant also argued that the Plaintiff had produced no evidence showing cause of action arising in Delhi, and instead used the phrases “accessible on digital platforms” and “also available for sale in Delhi” merely to concoct the jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court.
The Defendant placed reliance on the Indian Performing Rights Society Ltd. v. Sanjay Dalia[3] and Ultra Home Construction Pvt. Ltd. v. Purushottam Kumar Chaubey,[4] to prove that in the above situation, the Plaintiff was bound to file the plaint only at Mumbai and nowhere else. Most significantly, reliance was placed on Banyan Tree Holding case and the Federal Express Corporation v. FedEx Securities Limited & Ors.,[5] to show that the Plaintiff had made no specific averments in the plaint to show that the Defendant “purposefully availed” the jurisdiction of Delhi High Court.
PLAINTIFF’S SUBMISSIONS
The Plaintiff argued that the Plaintiff has a corporate office in Delhi also and that the cause of action arose in Delhi as well. It was argued that apart from the hoardings and banners, the Defendant had launched the campaign against the Plaintiff online on social media platforms and Defendant’s websites, wherein the latter “allows for sale” of Defendant’s products in Delhi.
Reliance was placed on a series of cases including but not limited to Burger King Corpn. v. Techchand Shewakramani,[6] Astral Ltd. v. Ajay Enterprises,[7] Rukhmani Keshwani vs. Raju Agarbatti Works & Anr.,[8] etc. to show that in cases where a part of course of action arises in one place, then the case can be instituted in that place. It was argued that if any cause of action arises at a place where the corporation’s subordinate office is situated then the corporation is also deemed to carry on business at such place.
DISCUSSION AND DECISION OF THE SINGLE JUDGE BENCH
The Court primarily discussed on two aspects:
The conflicts posed by Section 134(2) of the Trade Marks Act and Section 20 of CPC, on a Plaintiff- friendly forum; and
What extent of digital activity is sufficient to constitute a cause of action under Section 20(c) of CPC.
Herein, the Court primarily discussed four cases and noted the following:
Sanjay Dalia case: The Supreme Court has set-out a restrictive, purposive reading of Section 134(2) of the Trade Marks Act, by holding that where a corporation has its principal office at a place and a part of the cause of action also arises there, the corporation must sue there and cannot invoke a distant place merely because it also has a subordinate office or carries on business in such other place. Thus, this case has interpreted Section 134(2) as only removing the impediment that ordinarily exists for a Plaintiff under Section 20 of the CPC, who would otherwise have to pursue the Defendant at a distant location; however, it does not interpret Section 134 as authorising a Plaintiff to abandon the place of its principal office where the cause of action has itself arisen, even if only in part.
Banyan Tree case: This case adopts a stringent test for internet-based jurisdiction under Section 20(c). It holds that mere accessibility of a web-site in Delhi, even if interactive, does not suffice; and the Plaintiff must prima-facié show purposeful availment and specific targeting of the forum by the Defendant; and, where the ‘effects test’ is invoked, the Plaintiff must also show injury within the forum. This is materially different from a simple “accessibility equals use” approach. Herein, the internet does not automatically create a cause of action in every location from which a web-site can be accessed.
Burger King case: This case proceeds from the proposition that Sections 134 and 62 are “in addition to and not in exclusion of” Section 20 CPC. It states that if a Plaintiff establishes a cause of action within the forum under Section 20, there is no need to invoke Section 134. This judgment treats “use” in the course of trade as the cause of action in trademark infringement and passing off; and says that “use in relation to goods” includes advertising, promotion and publicity. On that footing, each place where there is such use gives rise to a cause of action under Section 20(c).
Kohinoor Seed Fields case:[9] This case distinguishes “cause of action” under Section 20(c) from “carrying on business” under Section 134(2), but applies an expansive e-commerce understanding to the latter. The judgment has held that a web-site enabling commercial transactions can mean that an entity carries on business wherever users could conclude those transactions; and actual completion of a transaction was “no longer indispensable”. It further states that this reasoning may apply symmetrically to a Defendant as it applies to a Plaintiff under Section 20(a). An interactive web-site through which a transaction can be concluded would permit the filing of a suit in whichever place that can occur.
Thus, the Single Bench of the Delhi High Court carried out an in-depth analysis of all the precedents cited in the matter and highlighted the persisting conflict in the existing law, and therefore, referred the matter to be adjudicated by the Division Bench.
DECISION OF THE DIVISION BENCH
The Court noted that the conditions of Section 20(a) as well as 20(c) of CPC were duly satisfied in this case, as the hoardings carrying the impugned advertisement campaigns were erected in Delhi. Therefore, the condition that a suit can be instituted only where the cause of action arises was fulfilled by the Plaintiff and the present issue was conclusively decided by the Court.
CONCLUSION
While the issue pertaining to territorial jurisdiction has been conclusively adjudicated in the present case, however, the arguments presented by both the parties in the current matter reflect the existing legal conflict as to what extent is choosing a forum of one’s choice and convenience in IP matters permissible, especially in matters where a part of the cause of action arises online.
Dakshita Sharma Katare
Associate
[1] 2009 SCC OnLine Del 3780.
[2] 2026:DHC:7198.
[3] (2015) 10 SCC 161.
[4] 2016 SCC OnLine Del 376.
[5] 2018 SCC OnLine Del 7824.
[6] (2018) 1 HCC (Del) 64.
[7] 2025 SCC OnLine Del 10065.
[8] 2026 SCC OnLine Del 4852.
[9] Kohinoor Seed Fields India (P) Ltd. v. Veda Seed Sciences (P) Ltd., 2025 SCC OnLine Del 8727.
Comments