In a trademark disparagement dispute between Hindustan Unilever and Kwick Living, the Delhi High Court identifies deep conflicts between the Supreme Court’s restrictive reading of Section 134(2) and the Delhi High Court’s evolving e-commerce jurisprudence, flagging the question for authoritative resolution. The Court held that there is an apparent conflict between the literal breadth of the expression “notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Civil Procedure” appearing in Section 134(2) of the Trade Marks Act and the purposive restriction imposed by the Supreme Court in Indian Performing Rights Society Ltd. vs. Sanjay Dalia [(2015) 10 SCC 161], to prevent forum-shopping by corporations with multiple offices at multiple locations.
The Court further identified a practical conflict between Banyan Tree Holding vs. A. Murali Krishna Reddy [2009 SCC OnLine Del 3780], which requires purposeful availment and specific targeting before an internet-based activity can establish jurisdiction under Section 20(c), and the broader statement in Burger King that cause of action arises in “each and every place” where there is a form of trade mark use, including advertising and publicity.
The court observed that whether the restrictive position in Indian Performing Rights Society Ltd. vs. Sanjay Dalia would still confine the plaintiff to the principal-office location when a part of the cause of action arises there, or whether the broader interpretation would open up the statutory options under Section 134(2) across multiple online marketplaces, appears to be an unresolved issue. In the interests of certainty and consistency in the law, the court considered it appropriate to refer the matter to a Larger Bench for determination.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice A. J. Bhambhani observed that the question of territorial jurisdiction in this suit turns on three principal statutory provisions, namely Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act, Section 62 of the Copyright Act, and Section 20 of the CPC, particularly Section 20(c) thereof. The court noted that the principal judicial precedents cited by the parties reveal two broad conflicts: first, whether Section 134(2) of the Trade Marks Act merely adds a plaintiff-friendly forum or is curtailed by the rule derived from Section 20 CPC; and second, what extent of digital activity is sufficient to constitute a cause of action under Section 20(c).
The court traced the evolution of the law, beginning with the Supreme Court’s decision in Indian Performing Rights Society Ltd. vs. Sanjay Dalia [(2015) 10 SCC 161], which laid down a restrictive, purposive reading of Section 134(2), holding that where a corporation has its principal office at a place and a part of the cause of action also arises there, the corporation must sue there and cannot invoke a distant place merely because it also has a subordinate office.
The court then reiterated examined the Delhi High Court’s decisions in Banyan Tree Holding vs. A. Murali Krishna Reddy [2009 SCC OnLine Del 3780], which adopted a stringent test requiring purposeful availment and specific targeting of the forum for internet-based jurisdiction; Ultra Home Construction Pvt Ltd. vs. Purushottam Kumar Chaubey [2016 SCC OnLine Del 376], which systematised four distinct corporate-office scenarios; Burger King Corpn. vs. Techchand Shewakramani [(2018) 1 HCC (Del) 64], which treated Sections 134 and 62 as being in addition to and not in exclusion of Section 20 CPC; and Kohinoor Seed Fields India (P) Ltd. vs. Veda Seed Sciences (P) Ltd [2025 SCC OnLine Del 8727], which applied an expansive e-commerce understanding to “carrying on business” while distinguishing it from “cause of action” under Section 20(c).
The court further noted that Kohinoor Seed Fields had expressed reservations regarding the correctness of the proposition laid down in Ultra Home Construction, observing that requiring a plaintiff to sue at the place of its subordinate office because the cause of action has arisen there would amount to “re-writing Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act.
Also read Delhi High Court Grants Bail To Two Accused In 2024 Jangpura Doctor Murder-Cum-Robbery Case
Briefly, Hindustan Unilever Limited (HUL) filed a commercial suit seeking a permanent injunction restraining Kwick Living (I) Private Limited from running an advertisement campaign titled “War on What’s Hidden,” which HUL alleged disparaged and denigrated its well-known products ‘Vim’ and ‘Surf Excel’ through unsubstantiated and misleading comparative claims. The impugned campaign was being broadcast on billboards, social media platforms such as YouTube and Instagram, and the defendant’s own commercial website.
At the very threshold, the defendant raised a preliminary objection contending that the Delhi High Court had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit, since both parties have their registered offices in Mumbai, and the only specific instance of a hoarding pleaded in the plaint was located in Mumbai. HUL countered that although its registered office is in Mumbai, it also has a corporate office in Delhi, and that the impugned campaign is accessible within Delhi through digital platforms and the defendant’s webpage, which permits sale of the defendant’s products within Delhi. HUL accordingly invoked jurisdiction under Section 20(c) 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.
