Delhi High Court Refers Key Questions on Jurisdiction in Online IP Disputes to Larger Bench

The Delhi High Court’s decision on August 25, 2026, in the case of Hindustan Unilever Limited (HUL) v Kwick Living (I) Private Limited has brought to the forefront the intricate issue of territorial jurisdiction in intellectual property disputes involving online content and advertising. While the court did not delve into the substantive merits of HUL’s trademark disparagement claims, it identified three critical jurisdictional questions that warranted consideration by a Larger Bench.

HUL initiated proceedings against Kwick Living over its “War on What’s Hidden” advertising campaign. The campaign, disseminated widely across platforms including YouTube, Instagram, Kwick’s own website, and physical billboards, was alleged by HUL to contain misleading and unsubstantiated statements disparaging its well-known Vim and Surf Excel products.

The widespread digital and physical circulation of the advertisements raised complex questions about the territorial reach of the alleged infringement and, consequently, the appropriate forum for adjudication.

Kwick challenged the Delhi High Court’s territorial jurisdiction at the outset, prompting the court to address jurisdictional issues before considering the substantive disparagement claims.

Both parties maintain registered offices in Mumbai, and HUL had identified at least one contested billboard located there. This fact established that a material part of the cause of action arose in Mumbai. However, mere online accessibility of the campaign in Delhi did not, according to the court, automatically establish a sufficient nexus with Delhi.

Kwick relied heavily on precedent from Indian Performing Rights Society Ltd. v Sanjay Dalia (2015), arguing that when the plaintiff’s principal office and part of the cause of action coincide, the plaintiff must sue in that jurisdiction rather than invoking jurisdiction based on a branch office elsewhere. On this basis, Mumbai was contended to be the proper forum.

Further, Kwick cited Ultra Home Construction Pvt. Ltd. v Purushottam Kumar Chaubey (2016), where the Division Bench clarified that provisions under Section 134(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and Section 62(2) of the Copyright Act, 1957, while allowing an IP owner to sue where it actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business, do not grant an unrestricted choice of court. The court emphasized that if the plaintiff conducts business through a subordinate office in the place where the cause of action arose, it should ordinarily sue there instead of selecting another forum based on its principal or other branch offices. Applying this reasoning, Delhi lacked jurisdiction because the dispute arose in Deoghar, where the plaintiff conducted business locally.

Kwick also invoked Banyan Tree Holding (P) Ltd. v A. Murali Krishna Reddy (2009), submitting that mere accessibility of a website in a forum is insufficient to establish jurisdiction without evidence of purposeful targeting, forum-directed commercial activity, or forum-specific injury. Kwick argued that HUL had not adequately pleaded any of these elements with respect to Delhi.

In contrast, HUL advocated for a broader interpretation of territorial jurisdiction. It argued that the campaign was disseminated nationwide through social media and Kwick’s website, making it accessible in Delhi. Moreover, HUL contended that Delhi consumers could purchase products through the interactive website, thereby creating a commercial nexus and establishing that part of the cause of action arose in Delhi.

The Delhi High Court’s referral of these jurisdictional questions to a Larger Bench signals a potential shift in how Indian courts may approach forum selection and territorial jurisdiction in cases involving online infringement, disparagement, and unfair competition claims. The Larger Bench’s forthcoming ruling could have significant implications for IP owners seeking to enforce their rights in the digital environment across India.