Delhi High Court Returns 17 IP Suits Over Jurisdiction

In a 246-page common judgment delivered on 3 November in ABD Maestro v. Great Galleon (CS(COMM) 987/2026) and 16 connected suits, the Delhi High Court held that none of the 17 IP suits fell within its territorial jurisdiction. It returned the plaints under Order VII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure for presentation before the appropriate court, with liberty to seek directions under Rule 10A. The ruling deals only with jurisdiction; infringement remains to be decided by the proper court.

Lead case: a vodka sold only in Madhya Pradesh

Mumbai-based ABD Maestro alleged that Indore-based Great Galleon's "V21" vodka copied the yellow-and-black trade dress of its "YELLO" brand. The court noted that the product image filed with the plaint read "for sale in Madhya Pradesh only", so the goods were not sold in Delhi. A GST registration naming Delhi as the defendant's principal place of business did not mean it carried on business there, the website showed no concluded transactions with people in Delhi, and the plaint omitted whether the defendant held a Delhi excise licence.

The rules the court laid down

• Online infringement: the plaintiff must show the defendant purposefully availed itself of the Delhi market by targeting people there, causing harm there, and must show commercially concluded transactions with people in Delhi through the website. That last requirement can be relaxed where the plaintiff cannot rely on Section 134(2) of the Trade Marks Act or Section 62(2) of the Copyright Act (suing where the plaintiff itself does business) and the defendant has no presence in India at all.
• Test purchases: using an investigator to create jurisdiction is, as a rule, concocting it. There are two exceptions: where the plaintiff shows that, without the investigator, a suit under Section 20(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure could not be brought before any other court; and where the defendant already supplies Delhi retailers, distributors or stockists and the investigator merely gathers evidence.
• Platforms as defendants: joining a Delhi-based marketplace, intermediary, domain registrar or web host as a formal party does not create jurisdiction; the contesting defendant is what counts.
• Traffic and registrations: social-media traffic from Delhi or a GST principal place of business is not enough.
• Bare averments: unsupported claims of sales in Delhi are ignored, and even where a sliver of the cause of action arises in Delhi, the court may decline the case as forum non conveniens.

The judgment also confirms that a plaintiff whose own principal office is in Delhi can still sue there under Section 134(2) of the Trade Marks Act or Section 62(2) of the Copyright Act; the limits above bite on plaintiffs with no office in Delhi.

J&C recommends that brand owners enforcing rights in India, including those targeting cross-border online sellers, choose the forum on the basis of where the defendant actually does business, where the goods are actually sold and evidence of completed transactions, and secure early proof of supply to local distributors or retailers, rather than relying on website access, self-arranged test purchases or joining a platform as a defendant to reach Delhi.

Source: delhihighcourt.nic.in