Delhi High Court Returns Commercial and IP Suits Where Territorial Jurisdiction Is Not Properly Established

The Court held that online accessibility of allegedly infringing material or a bare assertion of sales/delivery within Delhi does not, without the legally required purposeful commercial targeting or supporting material, automatically confer territorial jurisdiction; the court must identify the material and integral part of the cause of action and the appropriate forum.

Key Proposition: Mere accessibility of a website or online listing in a forum does not by itself establish territorial jurisdiction in an intellectual-property suit; the pleadings and supporting material must satisfy the applicable statutory and judicial tests, and the court must consider the forum conveniens.

• Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Section 20 and Order VII Rule 10 – Territorial jurisdiction – Whether online accessibility alone confers jurisdiction – Held, no.
• Trade Marks Act, 1999 – Section 134(2); Copyright Act, 1957 – Section 62(2) – Special jurisdiction provisions – Whether they dispense with the applicable territorial nexus – Held, no.
• Online infringement – Interactive websites and commercial targeting – Whether a bare listing or accessibility is sufficient – Held, the requirements identified in Banyan Tree must be met.

Background / Synopsis :

• The lead suit was brought by ABD Maestro Private Limited against Great Galleon Ventures Ltd. The common order considered the lead suit alongside a number of other commercial suits, many involving intellectual-property claims and attempts to invoke Delhi jurisdiction.
• The lead plaint pleaded that the defendant operated from Indore and also had a principal place of business in Delhi. The wider batch involved online listings, alleged sales, advertisements, delivery claims, and copyright/trademark disputes.
• The Court examined the jurisdictional pleadings in each suit, including whether the defendant carried on business in Delhi, whether a part of the cause of action arose there, and whether Delhi was the forum conveniens.
• The order was not a final adjudication on the merits of the underlying infringement claims.

Issues For Consideration :

• Whether the Delhi High Court had territorial jurisdiction over the lead suit and the connected suits on the pleaded facts.
• Whether online accessibility, online listings, alleged deliveries or a subordinate office were sufficient to establish jurisdiction under the CPC and the special IP statutes.
• Whether Delhi was the forum conveniens where the essential and integral part of the dispute arose elsewhere.

Submissions Of Parties :

• The plaintiffs relied on alleged online availability, advertisements, sales or deliveries in Delhi, commercial presence, and the jurisdiction provisions in the Trade Marks Act and Copyright Act.
• The defendants disputed the territorial nexus and argued that mere accessibility of websites or listings did not satisfy the test for purposeful targeting or establish a material part of the cause of action in Delhi.

Court's Observations & Analysis :

• The Court assessed territorial jurisdiction suit by suit rather than treating online accessibility as a universal basis for jurisdiction.
• It applied the principles associated with Banyan Tree to online commercial activity: mere accessibility or a passive listing is not enough; the pleaded activity must meet the relevant test for purposeful interaction/targeting and a cause of action in the forum.
• The Court considered the statutory provisions in the Trade Marks Act and Copyright Act alongside Section 20 CPC and the principles concerning the plaintiff’s place of business and the defendant’s principal office.
• The Court emphasised forum conveniens. Even where a small or incidental part of a cause of action could be said to arise in Delhi, that did not automatically make Delhi the appropriate forum if the material and integral events and parties were centred elsewhere.
• In the lead suit and the connected matters listed in the operative portion, the jurisdictional basis was found insufficient and the plaints were directed to be returned. The order did not determine whether the alleged infringement had occurred.

Decision & Directions :

• The plaints in CS(COMM) 987/2026 and the connected suits specifically listed in paragraph 423 were returned under Order VII Rule 10 read with Section 151 CPC for presentation before a court having territorial jurisdiction, if so advised.
• Pending applications, if any, stood disposed of.
• The plaintiffs were granted liberty to apply for appropriate directions under Order VII Rule 10A CPC.

Legal Provisions Discussed & Precedents Cited :

• Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Section 20: Territorial jurisdiction based on defendant’s residence/business or cause of action.
• Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Order VII Rule 10: Return of plaint for presentation before the proper court.
• Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Order VII Rule 10A: Procedure and directions following return of plaint.
• Trade Marks Act, 1999 – Section 134(2): Jurisdiction in specified trademark proceedings.
• Copyright Act, 1957 – Section 62(2): Jurisdiction in specified copyright proceedings.
• Banyan Tree Holding (P) Ltd. v. A. Murali Krishna Reddy – online activity and purposeful targeting for territorial jurisdiction – Applied.
• Dhodha House v. S.K. Maingi – principles on carrying on business for jurisdiction – Referred to.
• Indian Performing Rights Society Ltd. v. Sanjay Dalia – interpretation of special IP jurisdiction provisions and forum selection – Referred to.

Case Details :

• Case / Party Name: ABD Maestro Private Limited v. Great Galleon Ventures Ltd. (with connected commercial suits considered in the common order)
• Case Number(s): CS(COMM) 987/2026 and I.A. 24805/2026, I.A. 24806/2026 and I.A. 24807/2026; common order also addresses connected suits identified in the judgment
• Coram / Judges: Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, J. – Single Judge
• Counsel Appearances: Mr. Rajiv Nayyar, Senior Advocate; Mr. Akhil Sibal, Senior Advocate; and other advocates for the plaintiff; Mr. Chander M. Lall, Senior Advocate, with advocates for the defendant.

Disclaimer: This summary is an editorial aid and does not form part of the judgment. Refer to the original judgment before citing.