More Stories

Informist, Tuesday, Aug. 25, 2026

 

NEW DELHI – The Delhi High Court on Tuesday referred the issue of jurisdiction in intellectual property rights disputes when a company's materials are available online, or it has an interactive online website for transactions, to a larger bench. It will decide where a litigant must file a case in the country where online promotional material for a company's products is accessible. Justice A.K. Bhambhani's reference came after conflicting opinions in three different judgments on the issue.

 

Justice Bhambhani referred the question to the larger bench of whether a corporate plaintiff must sue only where its principal or registered office is situated when part of the cause of action has arisen there. In addition, he has sought clarity on whether intellectual property right suits are governed solely by section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, by Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act; or section 62 of the Copyright Act, all relating to jurisdiction of intellectual property right suits, or by an interplay of all those provisions and if so, how.

 

Because of 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 or be made so vague that a corporation could sue in just about any location within the country, the court said. That would throw the very concept of territorial jurisdiction of courts to the winds, it said.

 

The high court was hearing a permanent injunction suit filed by Hindustan Unilever Ltd. to bar Kwick Living (I) Pvt. Ltd. from broadcasting an advertisement campaign, styled as a public awareness initiative under the banner "War on What's Hidden". HUL claims that Kwick Living's campaign targets and disparages its products Vim and Surf Excel on the basis of unsubstantiated and misleading claims. Kwick Living'sadvertisement campaign is being run on billboards, various social media platforms, and its website. 

  

Kwick Living had raised a preliminary objection, submitting that the court in Delhi has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the case. Not only has HUL not made any specific averment showing the accrual of any cause of action in Delhi, but it has also pleaded an instance of hoarding in Mumbai, Kwick Living said. HUL makes no averment that any hoarding was found in Delhi, the company said.

 

HUL has attempted to establish jurisdiction by asserting that Kwick Living's advertisement is also accessible on digital platforms and its products are also available for sale in Delhi, Kwick Living said. HUL has not placed on record any bill or invoice to show that any of Kwick Living's products have been sold in Delhi, it said. In the absence of any averment which shows that Kwick Living has purposefully availed the digital platforms referred to in the petition for purposes of running the advertisement within the territorial jurisdiction of the court, HUL cannot succeed in asserting that the court in Delhi has territorial jurisdiction over the matter, Kwick Living said.

 

Tuesday, shares of Hindustan Unilever ended 0.3% lower at INR 2,024.20 on the National Stock Exchange.  End

 

Reported by Surya Tripathi

Edited by Saji George Titus

 

For users of real-time market data terminals, Informist news is available exclusively on the NSE Cogencis WorkStation.

 

Cogencis news is now Informist news. This follows the acquisition of Cogencis Information Services Ltd. by NSE Data & Analytics Ltd., a 100% subsidiary of the National Stock Exchange of India Ltd. As a part of the transaction, the news department of Cogencis has been sold to Informist Media Pvt. Ltd.

 

Informist Media Tel +91 (11) 4220-1000

Send comments to feedback@informistmedia.com

 

© Informist Media Pvt. Ltd. 2026. All rights reserved.