Trademarks

Clicks vs Courts – Delhi High Court Sends Territorial Jurisdiction in Online IP Suits to a Larger Bench

Gaurav Mishra · · 6 min read

Smartphone ad campaign radiating jurisdiction lines across a map of India, illustrating online disparagement and territorial jurisdiction in IP Suits. Featured image for: Clicks vs Courts – Delhi High Court Sends Territorial Jurisdiction in Online IP Suits to a Larger Bench

Summary

Hindustan Unilever Limited ("HUL") sued Kwick Living (I) Private Limited ("Kwick Living") before the Delhi High Court, seeking to restrain an advertisement campaign, "War on What's Hidden," that HUL claimed disparaged its Vim and Surf Excel brands across billboards, YouTube, Instagram, and Kwick Living's website. Before touching the merits, the Delhi High Court had to decide whether it had territorial jurisdiction, since both parties' registered offices sit in Mumbai and HUL pointed only to online accessibility and product sales in Delhi. Faced with a decade of conflicting Delhi High Court rulings on how the Code of Civil Procedure, the Trade Marks Act, and the Copyright Act interact in the digital context, the court declined to resolve the conflict itself and referred three questions to a Larger Bench. The ruling matters because it will determine, for the first time authoritatively, where companies can sue over online advertising and infringement that reaches audiences nationwide.

Background

A comparative advertising campaign built around the tagline “War on What’s Hidden” has done more than target two of India’s best-known cleaning brands; it has pushed the Delhi High Court to confront a fault line in Indian IP litigation that has been building for over a decade: where, exactly, can a company sue when the alleged wrong plays out entirely online? Hindustan Unilever Limited (“HUL”), owner of the marks VIM and SURF EXCEL, sued Kwick Living (I) Private Limited (“Kwick Living”) before the Delhi High Court, seeking a permanent injunction restraining Kwick Living from broadcasting, publishing, or hosting the “War on What’s Hidden” campaign, which HUL alleged disparaged its products through unsubstantiated comparative claims across billboards, YouTube, Instagram, and Kwick Living’s website. Summons were issued on 19 August 2026, at which point Kwick Living raised a preliminary objection that the Delhi High Court had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Both parties have their registered and principal offices in Mumbai, and HUL’s own plaint acknowledged that the only confirmed impugned hoarding had been photographed in Mumbai, not Delhi. HUL nonetheless argued that the campaign’s online accessibility in Delhi, together with local sales, founded jurisdiction. The court reserved judgment on this limited question on 24 August 2026, ahead of the merits.

Issues Before the Court

    • Whether territorial jurisdiction under Section 20(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 can rest on the online accessibility of an advertisement in Delhi, absent proof of purposeful targeting of the forum.
    • Whether Section 134(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and Section 62(2) of the Copyright Act, 1957 permit a plaintiff to sue outside its principal office once part of the cause of action has also arisen there, per Indian Performing Rights Society Ltd. v. Sanjay Dalia.
    • Whether the Delhi High Court’s conflicting Division Bench authorities on internet-based jurisdiction could be reconciled without reference to a Larger Bench.

Plaintiff’s Arguments

    • HUL argued jurisdiction under Section 20(c) CPC was independently made out since the campaign was accessible in Delhi through YouTube and Instagram, and Kwick Living’s webpage sold competing products in the city.
    • HUL contended Section 134(2) of the Trade Marks Act and Section 62(2) of the Copyright Act independently conferred jurisdiction, since HUL carries on business in Delhi.
    • HUL relied on Burger King Corporation v. Techchand Shewakramani to argue that trademark “use,” including advertising, creates a cause of action wherever it occurs.
    • HUL argued the Explanation to Section 20 CPC applies only to clauses (a) and (b), leaving its accessibility argument under Section 20(c) unaffected by Sanjay Dalia.

Defendant’s Arguments

    • Kwick Living argued the plaint made no specific averment of any cause of action in Delhi, referring only to a hoarding photographed in Mumbai.
    • Kwick Living noted both parties’ registered offices are in Mumbai, relying on Sanjay Dalia for the proposition that a plaintiff whose principal office coincides with the cause of action cannot invoke a different forum.
    • Kwick Living relied on Ultra Home Construction Pvt. Ltd. v. Purushottam Kumar Chaubey, which systematised Sanjay Dalia into four fact patterns barring suits at a subordinate office’s location when the cause of action arose at the principal office.
    • Kwick Living argued mere website accessibility in Delhi, without purposeful availment or specific targeting, could not establish jurisdiction, relying on Banyan Tree Holding (P) Ltd. v. A. Murali Krishna Reddy.

Court’s Analysis

A Conflict Ten Years in the Making

The court noted that the precedents cited by both parties revealed two unresolved conflicts: whether Section 134(2) of the Trade Marks Act merely adds a plaintiff-friendly forum or is curtailed by the restrictive reading given to it in Sanjay Dalia, and what degree of digital activity suffices for a cause of action under Section 20(c) of the CPC. The court observed that in Sanjay Dalia the Supreme Court adopted a purposive reading of Section 134(2), holding that where a corporation’s principal office and part of its cause of action coincide, the corporation must sue there and cannot invoke a distant forum merely because it also carries on business elsewhere. The court found this restrictive position sat uneasily against the literal breadth of the “notwithstanding” language in Section 134(2), which later Division Bench decisions had read more expansively, entrenching a genuine split in how territorial jurisdiction in IP suits gets determined.

The Online Dimension Splits the Bench Further

The court observed that this tension sharpened once digital activity entered the picture. It noted that Banyan Tree Holding (P) Ltd. v. A. Murali Krishna Reddy had adopted a stringent test for internet-based jurisdiction, requiring proof that the defendant purposefully availed of, and specifically targeted, the forum state, so that mere website accessibility would not by itself confer jurisdiction. The court further noted that World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. v. M/S Reshma Collection had taken a different route, treating an interactive website capable of concluding transactions as sufficient to show a party carries on business at every place the website could be used commercially. The court reasoned this divergence deepened in Kohinoor Seed Fields India Pvt. Ltd., which treated mere transactional capability as enough to establish jurisdiction, a position the court found hard to reconcile with Banyan Tree’s insistence on purposeful targeting. The court also pointed to Nilesh Girkar v. Zee Entertainment Enterprises Limited, where nationwide OTT availability was treated as generating a part cause of action in every territory of access, a proposition the court held could not be squared with Banyan Tree at all.

Why the Question Cannot Be Resolved Case by Case

The court held that permitting territorial jurisdiction in IP suits to rest on bare accessibility of a website or advertisement, without reference to where the cause of action actually arose, would dilute the very concept of territorial jurisdiction. The court opined that with the advent of the internet, the principle could not be allowed to become so vague that a corporation could sue in virtually any location in the country. The court found the conflicting Division Bench authorities could not be harmonised at the Single Judge level, and that the question of territorial jurisdiction in online IP suits, arising as it does on a near daily basis before the Delhi High Court, merited resolution by a Larger Bench rather than piecemeal adjudication.

Findings

In view of the observations and the arguments presented by both the parties, the Delhi High Court held that:

    • The conflict between Sanjay Dalia’s restrictive approach to Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act and Section 62 of the Copyright Act, and the broader interpretation adopted in later Division Bench rulings, could not be resolved at the Single Judge level.
    • The degree of online activity, including mere accessibility, targeted advertising, or transactional capability, needed for territorial jurisdiction under Section 20(c) of the CPC required authoritative clarification.
    • Three questions on territorial jurisdiction in IP suits, covering the interplay between the CPC, the Trade Marks Act, and the Copyright Act, and the jurisdictional rule for online transactions, stand referred to a Larger Bench.
    • The Registry was directed to place the judgment before the Chief Justice within one week, leaving HUL’s disparagement claim undecided pending the reference.

Case Citation: Hindustan Unilever Limited v. Kwick Living (I) Private Limited, CS(COMM) 904/2026 & I.A. 22515/2026, High Court of Delhi, decided on 25 August 2026. Available at https://indiankanoon.org/doc/54794195/.

Authored by Gaurav Mishra, IP Attorney, BananaIP Counsels

Filed underCase Reviews e-Commerce Law Intellectual Property Trademarks
Tags