Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS)- Law I Litigation I Arbitration
Date: 11.11.2026
Delhi High Court Redefines the Boundaries of IP Litigation: 17 Commercial Plaints Returned
This Short Article has been prepared & written by Advocate Ravi Shekhar Jha-Delhi High Court, New Delhi. The views expressed are based on his interpretation of the law. He can be reached at his email id intelconsul@gmail.com .
In a significant judgment addressing territorial jurisdiction in intellectual property litigation, the Delhi High Court has ordered the return of plaints in 17 commercial suits, reinforcing that litigants cannot select a preferred court merely through website accessibility, online transactions or artificially created causes of action.
Justice delivering the judgment in ABD Maestro Private Limited v. Great Galleon Ventures Ltd. & Connected Matters, examined the principles governing trademark infringement, copyright infringement, passing off and the territorial competence of civil courts.
The Court emphasised that the Delhi High Court’s established expertise in intellectual property matters does not confer nationwide jurisdiction over disputes that properly belong before other courts.
Website Accessibility Does Not Automatically Establish Jurisdiction
The Court examined Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Section 134(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, and Section 62(2) of the Copyright Act, 1957.
It rejected the proposition that the mere accessibility of an allegedly infringing product on Amazon, Flipkart or another online marketplace automatically establishes a cause of action in Delhi.
The Court distinguished between genuine commercial activities connected with a jurisdiction and incidental digital accessibility.
Key Legal Principles Established
1. Genuine Territorial Connection Is Essential
A plaintiff must establish a legally sustainable connection between the dispute and the territorial jurisdiction of the court. Mere website visibility or online product listings are insufficient.
2. Artificially Created Transactions Cannot Determine Jurisdiction
The Court scrutinised purchases arranged through investigators or agents solely to establish jurisdiction. Such transactions ordinarily cannot manufacture a cause of action, although genuine evidence of existing local sales may be relevant.
3. Forum Non Conveniens Applies to Civil Suits
Even where a limited part of the cause of action arguably arises within a court’s jurisdiction, the Court held that the doctrine of forum non conveniens may be applied to determine whether another competent forum has a more substantial connection with the dispute.
4. Clever Drafting Cannot Substitute for Evidence
The Court clarified that unsupported jurisdictional assertions cannot be protected merely by the doctrine of demurrer. Courts may examine whether pleadings create an artificial impression of territorial jurisdiction.
5. Carrying on Business Requires Statutory Compliance
The existence of an online commercial presence does not automatically establish that a plaintiff or defendant carries on business in every place where its website is accessible.
Important Judicial Precedents Considered
The Court examined established principles emerging from several decisions, including:
- Patel Roadways Limited v. Prasad Trading Company, (1991) 4 SCC 270.
- Dhodha House v. S.K. Maingi, (2006) 9 SCC 41.
- Indian Performing Rights Society Ltd. v. Sanjay Dalia, (2015) 10 SCC 161.
- Ultra Home Construction Pvt. Ltd. v. Purushottam Kumar Chaubey, 2016 SCC OnLine Del 376.
- World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. v. Reshma Collection, 2014 SCC OnLine Del 2031.
These precedents informed the Court’s examination of the expression carries on business and the territorial jurisdiction available under general and specialised intellectual property legislation.
Delhi High Court Returns All 17 Plaints
After examining the individual suits, the Court directed that all 17 plaints be returned under Order VII Rule 10 read with Section 151 CPC, for presentation before courts having appropriate territorial jurisdiction.
The plaintiffs were granted liberty to seek directions under Order VII Rule 10A CPC.
Importantly, the Court did not adjudicate the substantive merits of the underlying infringement claims.
Legal Significance: A Warning Against Forum Shopping
The judgment is particularly relevant to trademark proprietors, copyright holders, multinational corporations, e-commerce businesses and commercial litigants.
It reinforces that territorial jurisdiction is a statutory requirement, not a matter of litigation convenience.
For intellectual property owners, the ruling highlights the importance of establishing genuine sales, business operations, actionable infringement or other material facts connecting the dispute to the chosen forum. The decision also reinforces institutional discipline and the equitable distribution of commercial litigation among competent courts throughout India.
Aadrikaa Legal Services is a trusted legal and regulatory support partner providing end-to-end legal solutions to law firms, corporate organizations, and businesses across India. We specialize in paralegal services, litigation support, tax and regulatory matters, delivering reliable, efficient, and result-oriented legal assistance.
Our services include comprehensive paralegal support, drafting and documentation, legal research, case management, litigation handling, and representation support across various judicial and quasi-judicial forums. We also assist in direct and indirect tax matters, customs, GST, corporate regulatory compliance, and legal advisory.
Source: Delhi High Court
Handy Download:
Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com
Tel: +91-11-4999 2707
Leave a Reply