Delhi High Court Tightens Territorial Jurisdiction Rules for Online Trademark and Copyright Infringement Suits

The Delhi High Court has held that website accessibility and plaintiff-arranged online purchases are not, by themselves, sufficient to establish territorial jurisdiction in intellectual property infringement suits.

The Delhi High Court has delivered a significant ruling on territorial jurisdiction in online intellectual property disputes, holding that a plaintiff cannot establish jurisdiction merely because an allegedly infringing website is accessible in Delhi or because an investigator places an online order for delivery within the city.

In a consolidated judgment dated 3 November 2026, Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav considered territorial jurisdiction in 17 commercial intellectual property suits. The Court concluded that the plaintiffs had not established sufficient grounds for the Delhi High Court to entertain those proceedings and directed that the plaints be returned for presentation before the appropriate courts.

The decision has important implications for trademark owners, copyright holders, online businesses and companies pursuing infringement claims through digital platforms.

What was the dispute about?

The consolidated proceedings involved commercial intellectual property disputes in which plaintiffs sought to establish Delhi as the appropriate forum for their claims.

Among the jurisdictional grounds advanced were:

• The defendant’s website or online marketplace listings were accessible in Delhi.
• Allegedly infringing products could be ordered online and delivered to Delhi addresses.
• Investigators engaged by plaintiffs had purchased the disputed products.
• Social media accounts and online advertisements were accessible to Delhi users.
• The plaintiffs claimed that their business, goodwill or reputation suffered harm in Delhi.

The Court examined whether these connections were legally sufficient to establish territorial jurisdiction under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and the Copyright Act, 1957.

What did the Delhi High Court decide?

The Court held that the mere accessibility of a website in Delhi does not automatically establish territorial jurisdiction.

A website can generally be accessed from multiple locations. Treating accessibility alone as sufficient would potentially allow an intellectual property claimant to approach courts across the country without establishing a meaningful connection between the dispute and the chosen forum.

The Court also examined the use of investigator-arranged purchases.

A transaction initiated by the plaintiff or someone acting on its behalf cannot automatically be treated as sufficient proof that the defendant was commercially targeting customers in Delhi. The Court distinguished such artificial or plaintiff-created transactions from genuine commercial activity directed towards customers in the relevant territory.

For online activity relied upon to establish a cause of action, the Court considered whether the defendant had purposefully targeted the forum and whether commercially concluded transactions had taken place with persons within that jurisdiction.

The judgment also addressed the significance of the plaintiff’s business presence when relying on the additional jurisdiction provisions under the Trade Marks Act and Copyright Act.

Legal provisions considered

1. Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

Section 20 governs the territorial jurisdiction of civil courts. It generally permits proceedings to be instituted where the defendant resides or carries on business, or where the cause of action arises wholly or in part.

For online infringement claims, the judgment examines whether the defendant’s online conduct creates a legally sufficient connection with the territorial jurisdiction of the court.

2. Section 134(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999

Section 134(2) provides an additional forum for certain trademark infringement proceedings. A qualifying plaintiff may institute proceedings before a court within whose jurisdiction it resides, carries on business or personally works for gain.

However, the judgment emphasises that a plaintiff must establish the statutory requirements. The mere accessibility of a website or the availability of products in a particular location does not automatically demonstrate that the plaintiff carries on business there.

3. Section 62(2) of the Copyright Act, 1957

Section 62(2) similarly provides an additional forum for specified copyright proceedings based on the plaintiff’s residence, business or personal work for gain.

The judgment examines the requirements for invoking this additional jurisdiction and cautions against treating online accessibility as a substitute for the statutory test.

Why does this judgment matter for businesses?

The decision has practical consequences for businesses that enforce intellectual property rights through litigation.

For trademark owners: A brand owner should not assume that the presence of its products or the accessibility of a competing seller’s website in a particular city will automatically allow it to file an infringement suit there.

For copyright owners: Digital availability of allegedly infringing material may be relevant evidence, but the claimant must still establish the jurisdictional connection required by law.

For e-commerce businesses: Online listings and nationwide delivery capabilities do not necessarily establish that every dispute involving a product can be litigated in every location where the listing is accessible.

For companies conducting infringement investigations: Test purchases and investigator reports should be carefully assessed. A plaintiff-created transaction may not be enough to establish jurisdiction.

For legal teams: Before filing an infringement suit, businesses should assess the defendant’s actual commercial activity, the relevant transactions, the plaintiff’s qualifying business presence and the statutory basis for jurisdiction.

What should businesses and IP owners do?

Companies should review their intellectual property enforcement strategy before commencing proceedings.

In particular:

1. Identify the defendant’s registered office, principal place of business and actual commercial operations.
2. Preserve evidence of genuine transactions with customers in the proposed forum.
3. Distinguish independent customer transactions from purchases arranged by the claimant or its investigators.
4. Document evidence of purposeful targeting of customers in the relevant territory.
5. Establish the plaintiff’s qualifying business presence when relying on Section 134(2) of the Trade Marks Act or Section 62(2) of the Copyright Act.
6. Assess jurisdiction separately for each claim and each defendant.
7. Review the proposed forum before filing proceedings to reduce the risk of the plaint being returned.

Does the judgment dismiss the underlying infringement claims?

No. The Court’s decision concerned territorial jurisdiction, not the substantive merits of the underlying intellectual property infringement claims.

The plaints were returned under Order VII Rule 10 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, allowing the plaintiffs to present them before courts with appropriate territorial jurisdiction.

The decision should therefore not be interpreted as a finding that the alleged trademark or copyright infringement did not occur.

Further judicial consideration

Questions concerning the jurisdiction ruling were subsequently raised before a Full Bench of the Delhi High Court on 6 November 2026. The reported proceedings concerned a reference on jurisdictional issues and were not an appeal against the consolidated judgment.

Businesses and litigators should therefore monitor subsequent judicial developments before treating every aspect of the ruling as settled.

Frequently Asked Questions

1. Can a company file an online trademark infringement suit wherever its website is accessible?

Not automatically. The Delhi High Court has held that mere website accessibility is insufficient, by itself, to establish territorial jurisdiction. The claimant must demonstrate the legally required connection with the proposed forum.

2. Is an investigator’s online purchase sufficient to establish territorial jurisdiction?

Not necessarily. A purchase arranged by the plaintiff or its investigator does not automatically establish that the defendant was conducting genuine commercial activity in that jurisdiction.

3. What is Section 134(2) of the Trade Marks Act?

Section 134(2) provides an additional forum for certain trademark infringement proceedings based on the plaintiff’s residence, business or personal work for gain, subject to the statutory requirements.

4. What is Section 62(2) of the Copyright Act?

Section 62(2) provides a similar additional forum for specified copyright proceedings based on the plaintiff’s residence, business or personal work for gain.

5. Did the Delhi High Court dismiss the 17 IP infringement cases on their merits?

No. The Court returned the plaints on territorial jurisdiction grounds. The plaintiffs were permitted to present them before courts with appropriate jurisdiction.

Conclusion

The Delhi High Court’s ruling reinforces the importance of establishing a genuine territorial connection before commencing online intellectual property litigation.

For businesses and intellectual property owners, the practical message is clear: online accessibility alone should not be treated as a substitute for legally sufficient jurisdictional evidence.

Companies should assess the defendant’s commercial activity, genuine customer transactions and the plaintiff’s statutory business presence before selecting a forum for trademark or copyright enforcement proceedings.

Legal update status: Judicial decision dated 3 November 2026. Subsequent Full Bench consideration of jurisdictional questions was reported on 6 November 2026.

Sources and verification note

• ABD Maestro Private Limited v. Great Galleon Ventures Ltd. & connected matters, Delhi High Court, judgment dated 3 November 2026. The judgment text was reviewed through a legal database copy. The official Delhi High Court website was checked, but the full official judgment PDF could not be retrieved during this research.
• Delhi High Court official website: Latest Pronouncements.
• Reported Full Bench proceedings: Bar and Bench, 6 November 2026.

Editorial note: Verify the official signed judgment and the subsequent Full Bench proceedings before publication. The judgment is a jurisdictional ruling, not a final determination of the underlying infringement claims.