Emphasising that online infringement claims ordinarily require specific targeting, local injury and commercially concluded transactions, the Delhi High Court has clarified that website accessibility, social media presence, online listings, or investigator-led test purchases cannot by themselves confer Delhi jurisdiction in trademark, copyright and passing-off disputes.
The High Court held that the mere accessibility of a website, e-commerce platform, social media page, or online listing in Delhi does not automatically give Delhi court’s jurisdiction over an intellectual property dispute. The Court also ruled that jurisdiction cannot be artificially manufactured by engaging investigators, placing orders from Delhi, or arranging delivery of goods into Delhi solely for litigation purposes.
Further, in online infringement cases, a plaintiff must establish that the defendant specifically targeted customers in the jurisdiction and engaged in commercially concluded transactions there. Even where a small part of the cause of action is alleged to have arisen in Delhi, courts may decline jurisdiction if another forum has a substantially closer connection with the dispute.
Briefly, the High Court was dealing with a batch of 17 intellectual property suits involving trademark infringement, copyright infringement and passing off claims. Most of the parties were located outside Delhi, yet they invoked the jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court on grounds such as website accessibility, online listings, social media presence, GST registrations, delivery of products in Delhi through investigators, and alleged ‘dynamic effect’ of infringement within Delhi. The Court considered whether such factors were sufficient to confer territorial jurisdiction upon Delhi courts.
The lead matter, ABD Maestro Private Limited vs Great Galleon Ventures Ltd., along with connected cases, required the Court to revisit the law governing territorial jurisdiction in IP disputes and examine whether plaintiffs were artificially creating jurisdiction in Delhi despite the disputes having a much closer connection with other States.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav observed that if mere website accessibility, online presence, or the ability to deliver products anywhere in India were treated as sufficient grounds for jurisdiction, territorial jurisdiction rules would become meaningless in the digital age. Every court could then potentially entertain every IP dispute, irrespective of where the parties or the actual dispute were located.
The Court emphasised that jurisdiction cannot be created by a plaintiff’s own actions. It held that a plaintiff cannot engage investigators, place orders from Delhi, or arrange delivery to Delhi merely to manufacture jurisdiction where none otherwise exists. Such conduct amounts to forum shopping and undermines the concept of territorial limits prescribed under law.
The Court further observed that mere availability of products on websites, social media pages, IndiaMART, JustDial, Amazon, Flipkart or similar platforms does not automatically mean that the defendant is carrying on business in Delhi or that a cause of action has arisen in Delhi. There must be real and meaningful commercial targeting of Delhi and not mere accessibility of an online platform.
The Bench also cautioned against treating the alleged “dynamic effect” of infringement on a plaintiff’s reputation or business as an independent jurisdictional basis. The Court held that such a theory would effectively nullify the specific jurisdictional provisions contained in the Trade Marks Act, Copyright Act and CPC.
