The growth of online advertising and e-commerce has made territorial jurisdiction in intellectual property disputes more difficult to determine. When infringing or disparaging material can be accessed across the country through websites, social media platforms, and online marketplaces, the appropriate forum cannot always be decided by looking only at where the parties are located or where the alleged infringement first took place.
The Delhi High Court examined this issue in Hindustan Unilever Limited vs Kwick Living (I) Private Limited [CS(COMM) 904/2026], decided on August 25, 2026. The suit arose from allegations of disparagement and trademark infringement in relation to an advertising campaign involving competing consumer products. The Court did not decide those allegations in this judgment. Instead, it first examined the defendant’s objection that the Delhi High Court did not have territorial jurisdiction to hear the suit. While doing so, the Court noted differences in the way earlier decisions had dealt with territorial jurisdiction in IP disputes, especially those involving online commercial activity.
Background of the Case
The plaintiff filed a commercial suit seeking a permanent injunction against an advertising campaign that allegedly disparaged two of its products through misleading and unsupported claims. The campaign was said to have been circulated through outdoor advertisements, social media platforms and the defendant’s website.
According to the plaintiff, the campaign was presented as a public awareness initiative but in fact targeted its products and harmed their reputation and goodwill. It also argued that the cause of action was continuing because the advertisements and related webpage remained available through online and offline channels.
At the stage of summons, the defendant raised a preliminary objection that the Delhi High Court lacked territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The issue required the Court to examine Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and Section 62 of the Copyright Act, 1957.
Defendant’s Objection to Territorial Jurisdiction
The defendant argued that the suit could not be filed before the Delhi High Court because the registered offices of both parties were in Mumbai. They also pointed out that the plaintiff had specifically referred to an outdoor advertisement in Mumbai, but had not pleaded any similar physical advertisement in Delhi.
According to the defendant, the plaintiff was relying mainly on the fact that the impugned campaign could be accessed in Delhi through social media and the defendant’s website, and that the defendant’s products were also available online in Delhi. The defendant argued that online accessibility alone was not enough to give the Delhi High Court jurisdiction.
The defendant relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Indian Performing Rights Society Ltd. vs Sanjay Dalia. While interpreting Section 62 of the Copyright Act and Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act, the Supreme Court held that these provisions should not be used by corporations to choose a distant forum merely because they have a subordinate office there.
The principle applied was that where a corporate plaintiff has its principal place of business at a location where the cause of action has also arisen, it cannot ordinarily rely on the special jurisdiction provisions under the IP laws to file the suit elsewhere only because it has another office there.
The defendant also referred to Ultra Home Construction Pvt. Ltd. vs Purushottam Kumar Chaubey, where the Delhi High Court further explained the principles laid down in Sanjay Dalia by examining the location of the principal office, subordinate office and the place where the cause of action arose.
The defendant also relied on Banyan Tree Holding (P) Ltd. vs A. Murali Krishna Reddy, where the Division Bench held that the mere accessibility of a website within a court’s territorial jurisdiction is not enough, and the website must purposefully target customers within that forum. Where the “effects test” is relied upon, the plaintiff must also show that the activity caused injury within that jurisdiction.
Based on these decisions, the defendant argued that the pan-country availability of the online material could not by itself give the Delhi High Court territorial jurisdiction.
Plaintiff’s Submissions
The plaintiff argued that although their registered office was in Mumbai, they also had a corporate office in Delhi. They further submitted that part of the cause of action had independently arisen in Delhi. According to the plaintiff, the impugned campaign was available in Delhi through online platforms and the defendant’s website. The webpage was not merely informational, but formed part of the defendant’s commercial activity and allowed consumers to access the defendant’s competing products.
The plaintiff relied on Section 20(c) CPC along with Section 134(2) of the Trade Marks Act and Section 62(2) of the Copyright Act. It also relied on the Delhi High Court’s decision in Burger King Corporation vs Techchand Shewakramani, where the Court held that the jurisdiction available under the Trade Marks Act and the Copyright Act is in addition to Section 20 CPC. The Court had also recognised that “use” of a trademark in the course of trade can form part of the cause of action and that such use may include advertising, promotion and publicity. Based on this, the plaintiff argued that online dissemination and commercial activity in Delhi were sufficient to support jurisdiction under Section 20(c) CPC.
The plaintiff also cited other decisions to support their argument that jurisdiction may arise at a place where a meaningful part of the cause of action or its commercial impact is shown to have occurred.
Court’s Findings
After considering the submissions and the case law referred to by the parties, the Court observed that the existing legal position had differing approaches to territorial jurisdiction in IP disputes.
One area of ambiguity related to the relationship between Section 20 CPC and the special jurisdiction provisions in Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act and Section 62 of the Copyright Act. Some decisions have emphasised limitations to stop forum shopping when the plaintiff’s main office is in the same location where the issue arose. However, other decisions see Section 20 of the CPC as a valid way to establish jurisdiction wherever any part of the cause of action can be established.
The Court also noted a lack of clarity on internet-based activity. Some legal opinions require more than just access to a website and look for a clear intention to target specific users or a strong connection to a particular area. Other decisions on online businesses and e-commerce take a broader view when deciding where business activities can occur. The Court noted that treating online accessibility as sufficient to establish jurisdiction could dilute the concept of territorial jurisdiction and potentially permit proceedings to be instituted in many forums. Therefore, the Court considered that the issue required authoritative consideration by a Larger Bench.
Questions Referred to the Larger Bench
The Court referred three principal questions for consideration. The first was how Section 20 CPC works with Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act and Section 62 of the Copyright Act. The second was whether a corporate plaintiff must file the suit at the place of its principal or registered office when part of the cause of action has also arisen there. The third was what test should apply in IP disputes involving online transactions and internet-based activity. The Registry was directed to place the matter before the Chief Justice for constitution of an appropriate Bench.
Importance of the Decision
The decision is important as digital advertising, social media dissemination and nationwide e-commerce now challenge the traditional assumptions relating to territorial jurisdiction of a court. The same advertisement can be viewed simultaneously in several States, and an online transaction may be completed from almost anywhere in the country. The Larger Bench may now clarify when online activity is enough to give a court jurisdiction and whether mere access to a website is sufficient. It may also clarify the difference between the place where a company carries on business and the place where a cause of action arises.
Authors: Manisha Singh and Shivi Gupta