Delhi High Court: Addresses Hindustan Unilever Online IP Jurisdiction

• The Delhi High Court is addressing a significant legal question regarding territorial jurisdiction for online intellectual property infringement in India.
• The case, Hindustan Unilever Ltd. v. Kwick Living, examines the interplay of Section 20 CPC, Section 62 Copyright Act, and Section 134 Trade Marks Act.
• Earlier, the Kohinoor Seed Fields India v Veda Seed Sciences case established that for e-commerce, business situs extends to any place capable of concluding a transaction.
• While the Kohinoor case resolved its specific dispute, it left the broader doctrine of overlapping territorial jurisdiction unresolved.
• The proper forum for online infringement suits under Indian IP laws remains an open question, awaiting a decision from a larger bench.

The widespread accessibility of the internet further sharpens this jurisdictional dilemma, as it theoretically allows almost any court in the country to claim some form of accessibility-based connection to a dispute.

The legal framework governing territorial jurisdiction for intellectual property infringement claims, particularly those arising from online platforms, is undergoing significant evolution in India. This complex area requires a careful examination of Section 20 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), alongside the specific provisions of Section 62 of the Copyright Act, 1957, and Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.

Recently, the Delhi High Court, in the case of Hindustan Unilever Ltd. v. Kwick Living (I) (P) Ltd., identified a crucial legal question concerning how courts should determine territorial jurisdiction when an injunction is sought against an alleged online infringer. This issue is particularly pertinent given the inherent nature of online platforms, which are accessible across the entire geographical expanse of India, making the question of the appropriate online infringement forum India a pressing concern.

The challenge lies in identifying which court is best equipped to exercise statutory jurisdiction under the combined provisions of Section 62 of the Copyright Act, Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act, and Section 20 of the CPC. The goal is to effectively entertain actions brought by aggrieved parties seeking redress, including permanent injunctions, damages, and other consequential relief, in an environment where the alleged infringement has a nationwide digital footprint.

A similar jurisdictional question was presented to the Delhi High Court in 2025, in the matter of Kohinoor Seed Fields India (P) Ltd. v. Veda Seed Sciences (P) Ltd. In that instance, the court built upon the rationale established in World Wrestling Entertainment v. Reshma Collection. The court determined that for e-commerce activities, the concept of 'carrying on business' extends to every location where a commercial transaction could potentially be finalized and goods could be bought or sold.

This principle applies even if there is no concrete evidence of an actual sale, provided the website or platform facilitating the alleged infringement is interactive and capable of concluding such transactions in that location. The Division Bench in the Kohinoor case concluded that any court with jurisdiction over such a place is competent to adjudicate matters of infringement or passing off. While the Kohinoor case successfully resolved the specific dispute before it, it notably left the broader doctrine of overlapping territorial jurisdiction under Section 62 of the Copyright Act and Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act unresolved.

This unresolved aspect is precisely what has now been referred to a larger Bench in the Hindustan Unilever Ltd. case. The widespread accessibility of the internet further sharpens this jurisdictional dilemma, as it theoretically allows almost any court in the country to claim some form of accessibility-based connection to a dispute. Consequently, the definitive proper forum for infringement suits under both the Trade Marks Act and the Copyright Act in India online IP territorial jurisdiction remains an open question, awaiting clarity from the higher court.

The standard jurisdictional rule outlined in Section 20 of the Civil Procedure Code generally mandates that a lawsuit be filed either where the defendant resides or conducts business, or where the cause of action originates, either wholly or in part. However, the legislative intent behind intellectual property statutes provides for a more expansive approach.

In contrast to the CPC, Section 134(2) of the Trade Marks Act and Section 62(2) of the Copyright Act, which are largely identical in their wording and both commence with a non-obstante clause, establish an additional forum specifically for the plaintiff. These provisions carve out an alternative venue, allowing the person initiating the suit to file it in a location that might not otherwise be permissible under the general CPC provisions.

One potential interpretation that aligns with the legislative purpose of these IP-specific sections suggests that the plaintiff's principal place of business should serve as the primary court for instituting such suits. If this is not applicable, jurisdiction could then lie with a court in a place where one or more plaintiffs actually reside, carry on business, or personally work for gain, or where a substantial portion of the cause of action has arisen. This interpretation aims to prevent plaintiffs from exercising an unfettered right to bypass all such logical venues and approach a court where none of these conditions are met, ensuring a more principled approach to Hindustan Unilever online IP jurisdiction.

The ongoing uncertainty surrounding territorial jurisdiction for online intellectual property infringement in India presents a significant challenge for legal practitioners and businesses alike. The question of the proper online infringement forum India is not merely academic; it dictates where a plaintiff can seek relief and where a defendant must respond to allegations.

Until the Delhi High Court's larger bench provides definitive guidance in the Hindustan Unilever case, lawyers advising clients on online intellectual property infringement in India must navigate a landscape marked by ambiguity. The interplay of Section 20 CPC, Section 62 Copyright Act 1957, and Section 134 Trade Marks Act 1999, particularly in the context of the internet's pervasive reach, means that the selection of the correct forum for filing or defending such suits remains a critical and complex decision.

This situation underscores the need for continuous monitoring of judicial developments, as the forthcoming decision is expected to clarify the principles governing Delhi High Court IP jurisdiction for online disputes. Such clarity is essential for establishing a predictable and effective system for enforcing intellectual property rights in the digital age.

Lawyers advising clients on online intellectual property infringement in India must be aware of the ongoing uncertainty regarding territorial jurisdiction, particularly concerning the interplay of Section 20 CPC, Section 62 Copyright Act, and Section 134 Trade Marks Act. They should monitor the Delhi High Court's larger bench decision in the Hindustan Unilever case for clarity on where to file or defend such suits, as the proper forum remains an open question.

Source: Original reporting via legal analysis