The Delhi High Court has referred an important question of territorial jurisdiction in intellectual property (IP) disputes to a larger Bench, concerning whether the mere online availability of products across India enables a company to institute an IP infringement suit in any part of the country.
The issue assumes significance in the context of e-commerce and digital marketplaces, where products, services and advertisements are accessible to consumers across multiple States without the physical presence of the concerned business in each jurisdiction.
The Court is examining whether such pan-India accessibility of a website or online product is, by itself, sufficient to confer territorial jurisdiction upon a court.
Core Legal Issue
The principal question is whether a plaintiff can approach a particular High Court merely because the defendant’s products are available for purchase online within that jurisdiction, even when there is no other substantial connection between the dispute and that territory.
The issue directly concerns the interpretation and application of Section 134(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and Section 62(2) of the Copyright Act, 1957, which provide special jurisdictional provisions for certain IP infringement proceedings.
At the same time, courts have traditionally required a meaningful territorial connection rather than treating mere accessibility of an online platform as sufficient.
Court’s Concern
Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani observed that merely because a product is accessible through the internet throughout India, it should not automatically follow that a company can institute an IP suit anywhere in the country.
Such an approach could potentially allow plaintiffs to select jurisdictions having little or no connection with the alleged infringement, raising concerns regarding forum shopping and the appropriate limits of territorial jurisdiction.
Why the Issue Matters
The question has substantial implications for modern commercial litigation. If online availability alone is considered sufficient, an IP owner could potentially initiate proceedings in multiple jurisdictions based solely on the geographic accessibility of its website or online marketplace.
Conversely, requiring an additional territorial nexus could restrict jurisdiction to places where there is a real commercial or legal connection with the alleged infringement.
The larger Bench’s determination is therefore likely to have significant consequences for trademark owners, copyright holders, e-commerce businesses, online marketplaces and digital-first companies.
Legal Significance
The reference reflects the continuing challenge faced by Indian courts in applying traditional principles of territorial jurisdiction to internet-based commercial activity.
The forthcoming ruling may help clarify the distinction between:
• mere accessibility of a website or product;
• actual commercial activity within a jurisdiction;
• an offer for sale or completed transaction in that territory; and
• the existence of a sufficient cause of action within the jurisdiction.
The decision could consequently provide greater certainty to litigants regarding the appropriate forum for instituting IP infringement proceedings arising from online activities.
Key Takeaway
The Delhi High Court’s reference highlights an important principle for digital-era litigation: nationwide internet accessibility should not automatically translate into nationwide territorial jurisdiction. The larger Bench’s decision may therefore become significant in determining how Indian courts balance special IP jurisdiction provisions with the realities of e-commerce and the internet.