Whose Court Is It Anyway? Delhi HC Refers Conflicting Precedents on Online-Reach Territorial Jurisdiction to a Larger Bench in HUL v. Kwick Living

Hindustan Unilever Limited v. Kwick Living (I) Private Limited | High Court of Delhi at New Delhi | 25.08.2026

Suit by Hindustan Unilever seeking an injunction against an advertisement campaign alleged to disparage its 'Vim' and 'Surf Excel' trademarks. On a preliminary objection to territorial jurisdiction, both parties' registered offices were in Mumbai; the plaintiff invoked Section 20(c) CPC on the basis of online/hoarding dissemination reaching Delhi, and Section 134(2) Trade Marks Act / Section 62(2) Copyright Act on the basis of carrying on business in Delhi. Surveying a series of conflicting Division Bench authorities (Banyan Tree, World Wrestling Entertainment, Burger King, Ultra Home Construction, Kohinoor Seed Fields, Nilesh Girkar and Astral Limited) against the Supreme Court's ruling in Sanjay Dalia, the Court identified genuine and unresolved conflicts on whether online accessibility/advertising suffices to found jurisdiction and whether a plaintiff may sue at a subordinate office when the cause of action also arises at its principal office. Without deciding the interim injunction application, the Court referred three questions of law to a Larger Bench.

Background

1. HUL sued Kwick Living for a permanent injunction restraining the advertisement campaign styled “War on What's Hidden”, alleged to disparage its 'Vim' and 'Surf Excel' products through billboards, YouTube, Instagram and the defendant's website.
2. Both the plaintiff and the defendant have their registered/principal offices in Mumbai; the plaintiff pleaded territorial jurisdiction in Delhi under Section 20(c) CPC based on the online accessibility and commercial effect of the campaign in Delhi, and independently under Section 134(2) Trade Marks Act/Section 62(2) Copyright Act on the ground of carrying on business in Delhi.
3. The defendant raised a preliminary objection disputing territorial jurisdiction, contending that the plaint disclosed only a confirmed hoarding in Mumbai, no averment or proof of actual sales in Delhi, and relying on the Supreme Court's ruling in Indian Performing Rights Society v. Sanjay Dalia, (2015) 10 SCC 161, that a plaintiff whose principal office coincides with part of the cause of action must sue only there.
4. The Court confined the present hearing to the preliminary objection on territorial jurisdiction, deferring consideration of the interim injunction application on merits.

Court’s Observations

1. Sanjay Dalia restricts a corporate plaintiff to suing at its principal place of business where part of the cause of action also arises there, notwithstanding the existence of a subordinate office elsewhere.
2. Subsequent Division Bench decisions of the Delhi High Court have taken divergent approaches: Burger King treats “use” in advertising/promotion as generating a cause of action wherever such use occurs; Banyan Tree requires purposeful availment and forum-specific targeting before online activity can found jurisdiction; Kohinoor Seed Fields treats the mere transactional capability of an interactive website as sufficient to constitute “carrying on business”; Nilesh Girkar treats nationwide OTT availability as generating a cause of action in every accessible territory; and Astral Limited permits suit at both the principal and subordinate offices in the same factual setting.
3. These lines of authority are in direct and practical conflict with each other and with Sanjay Dalia, particularly on whether digital accessibility or advertising can found territorial jurisdiction and whether a corporate plaintiff can bypass the principal-office bar through Section 134(2)/Section 62(2).
4. Cautioning that the reach of the internet cannot be allowed to dilute settled principles of territorial jurisdiction to the point that a corporation could sue almost anywhere in the country, the Court declined to resolve the conflict itself, given the frequency with which the question arises, and referred specific questions of law to a Larger Bench, directing the Registry to place the matter before the Chief Justice.

Legal Provisions Discussed

1. Section 20(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
2. Section 134(1) and (2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
3. Section 62(1) and (2) of the Copyright Act, 1957.

Case Details :

Court Name: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi

Case Number: CS(COMM) 904/2026 & I.A. 22515/2026

Case / Party Name: Hindustan Unilever Limited v. Kwick Living (I) Private Limited

Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi

Coram / Judges: Hon’ble Mr. Justice A. J. Bhambhani

Date of Decision: 25.08.2026

Letters Patent / Appeals (if any): Reference to a Larger Bench on questions of territorial jurisdiction