The Delhi High Court has cautioned companies and litigants against approaching it for intellectual property (IP) disputes based on insignificant connections with the national capital, underlining the need for courts to respect territorial jurisdiction, Bar and Bench reported.
According to the report, a single-judge Bench of Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, in a 246-page judgment, returned 17 commercial suits, largely involving intellectual property rights disputes, after finding that the parties had little or no substantial connection with Delhi.
In more than half of the cases, neither the plaintiffs nor the defendants were based in Delhi. The court observed that the courts within whose territorial jurisdiction the parties were located were competent to adjudicate the disputes.
The court said the Delhi High Court, which has emerged as a preferred forum for intellectual property litigation, should not acquire a reputation for entertaining cases regardless of how insignificant their connection with the capital might be.
Justice Kaurav noted that India’s intellectual property landscape had largely grown under the “Banyan Tree” of the Delhi High Court. However, he cautioned that its prominence should not come at the cost of other High Courts and district courts developing their own specialised mechanisms for handling such disputes.
“The question is not one of losing territory but of institutional discipline,” the court said, adding that entertaining a dispute in Delhi when it properly belongs before another court could deprive the rightful forum of an opportunity to adjudicate it.
The court also clarified the principles governing territorial jurisdiction in trademark and copyright infringement and passing off cases.
It held that the mere accessibility of a website in Delhi, or the possibility of ordering goods online and having them delivered to an address in the capital, would not automatically confer territorial jurisdiction on the Delhi High Court, according to the Bar and Bench report.
For online infringement claims, plaintiffs must establish that the defendant deliberately targeted consumers in the relevant territory and concluded commercial transactions with them through its website.
In passing off cases, the mere availability of goods in a territory is insufficient. Plaintiffs must demonstrate commercial-scale sales by the defendant or its distributors, wholesalers or retailers in that territory.
The court also cautioned against plaintiffs attempting to manufacture jurisdiction by strategically placing online orders or engaging private investigators to purchase allegedly infringing products in Delhi.
The judgment further held that territorial jurisdiction must be independently established for infringement and passing off claims, even when both are pursued in a composite suit.
Justice Kaurav said drawing a boundary around jurisdiction was a matter of institutional discipline, particularly for a court that had historically exercised wide jurisdiction in intellectual property matters.
