The Bombay High Court has just tightened the screws on forum-shopping in trademark suits. In M/s ARCEE Electronics v. M/s ARCEEIKA, Justice Sandeep V. Marne held that for jurisdiction under Section 134(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, what matters is where the sale actually took place—not where the buyer lives or where the goods were later delivered.
Put simply: delivery to a customer in Mumbai won't confer Mumbai jurisdiction if the purchase happened elsewhere.
This ruling sits neatly alongside the Bombay High Court's earlier view in Prince Pipes & Fittings Ltd. v. Shree Sai Plast Pvt. Ltd. (2024), which affirmed that a plaintiff can sue at its principal place of business even if the registered office is somewhere else—so long as statutory conditions are met.
Read together, the message is clear: plead and prove the real locus of your business activity (place of purchase/principal place of business), not incidental touchpoints like a customer's residence.
These Bombay HC decisions also harmonize with the Supreme Court's guidance in IPRS v. Sanjay Dalia and related Delhi HC jurisprudence, which curb tactical forum selection and require a genuine nexus to the chosen court. Expect closer scrutiny of invoices, POS records, and website/cart flows to establish the true situs of the sale.
Explore More: Trademark Lawyers in India
The Bombay HC Ruling — Facts & Issue (ARCEE Electronics v. ARCEEIKA, 11 Aug 2025)
What sparked the dispute.
M/s ARCEE Electronics sued ARCEEIKA for trademark infringement and passing off. To anchor the suit in Mumbai, the plaintiff relied on invoices showing deliveries to customers residing in Mumbai, arguing that these deliveries created the territorial nexus under Section 134(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The defendants countered with an Order VII Rule 10 CPC application, saying the plaint should be returned because the actual purchases occurred outside Mumbai (at ARCEE's showrooms/offices in Navi Mumbai/Raigad), so the Bombay High Court (Original Side) lacked jurisdiction. The matter came before Justice Sandeep V. Marne.
The narrow question.
Does delivery to a customer's address within the court's limits amount to the plaintiff "carrying on business" there for Section 134(2), or is the situs of purchase/sale the determinative factor?
The holding in one line.
Place of purchase controls—not the customer's residence or the delivery address. Mere delivery does not mean the plaintiff "carries on business" at that place. The Court, therefore, returned the plaint under Order VII Rule 10 CPC for presentation before the competent court.
How the Court Read Section 134(2)
1. Section 134(2) is a special plaintiff-centric forum, but not a free pass.
Justice Sandeep V. Marne reiterated that Section 134(2) of the Trade Marks Act allows a plaintiff to sue where it "carries on business," independent of where the cause of action arose. But that relaxation isn't elastic enough to treat a delivery address as a place where the plaintiff "carries on business." The Court anchored this on the text of Section 134 and the Supreme Court's guardrails in IPRS v. Sanjay Dalia—use the special forum, yes, but don't distort it.
2. The determinative fact is the place of purchase/sale, not the customer's residence.
The Bench held in clear terms: the situs of the sale fixes the plaintiff's business locus for Section 134(2); mere delivery to a buyer in Mumbai does not mean the plaintiff carries on business in Mumbai. That precise proposition—and even the illustrative invoice example—appears in the judgment text and news coverage.
3. Order VII Rule 10 CPC applied—plaint returned for presentation to the competent court.
Because the plaintiff's showrooms/head office were outside the Bombay City civil limits and the transactions occurred there, the Court found no territorial nexus with the Original Side; it therefore returned the plaint.
4. Harmony with the Supreme Court and Delhi HC line.
The ruling hews to Sanjay Dalia (SC), which prevents mixing the special plaintiff forum with stray cause-of-action fragments to enable forum shopping, and to Ultra Home (Delhi HC), which allows suing at a subordinate office only if part of the cause of action also arises there. Together, they require a genuine business or cause-of-action link to the chosen court.
5. Consistency with Bombay HC's "principal place of business" approach.
In Prince Pipes & Fittings Ltd. v. Shree Sai Plast Pvt. Ltd. (2024), the Bombay HC recognized that a trademark suit can lie at the principal place of business (even if the registered office is elsewhere), but the plaintiff must still prove that actual business is carried on there. The present ruling fits that template: prove where you really do business; don't rely on a customer's doorstep.
Conclusion
The Bombay High Court's message is unambiguous: for trade mark jurisdiction under Section 134(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, courts will privilege the place of purchase and a plaintiff's principal place of business over incidental facts like a buyer's residence or a courier label. That trims the room for forum shopping and raises the bar on pleadings: show where the sale contract was actually concluded (or where you genuinely carry on business), or be prepared for an Order VII Rule 10 CPC return.
For brand owners, the strategic shift is simple but significant. Build your plaint around verifiable business loci—billing counters, back-office decision centres, payment-gateway acceptance, returns hubs—and, in e-commerce, add purposeful targeting and the locus of contract formation to the mix (think Banyan Tree). For defendants, attack weak jurisdiction early: demand strict proof of "carrying on business," insist on the purchase-place test, and neutralise passive websites and delivery-only narratives. Done right, this approach makes jurisdiction predictable, pleadings sharper, and trademark enforcement more efficient where it truly belongs.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
