- within Insurance, Transport and Environment topic(s)
Observing that the existing case laws reveal divergence on how territorial jurisdiction should be determined in IP disputes, including those involving transactions over the internet and e-commerce modes, a Single Judge of the Delhi High Court has referred to the Larger Bench the following issues.
-
Whether IP suits are governed solely by Section 20 CPC; by Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act; or Section 62 of the Copyright Act, or by an interplay of all those provisions and if so, how.
-
Whether a corporate plaintiff must sue only where its principal or registered office is situated, when a part of the cause of action has arisen there.
-
What jurisdictional rule should govern online transactions in IP disputes in light of the conflicting approaches taken in Banyan Tree, World Wrestling Entertainment and Kohinoor Seed Fields.
The conflict before the High Court in Hindustan Unilever Limited v. Kwick Living (I) Private Limited [25 August 2026] was whether Section 134(2) of the Trade Marks Act merely adds a plaintiff friendly forum or is that provision curtailed by Section 20 of the Civil Procedure Code. The Court also sought answer to the question as to what extent of digital activity is sufficient to constitute a cause of action under Section 20(c) of the Civil Procedure Code.
It may be noted that in respect of territorial jurisdiction of the Court due to online transactions, the High Court observed that with the advent of the internet and the accessibility of goods at any remote location via the world-wide-web, the principles of law in relation to territorial jurisdiction of courts cannot be so diluted that a corporation could sue in just about any location within the country. According to the Single Judge, that would throw the very concept of territorial jurisdiction of courts to the wind.
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.
[View Source]