The Delhi High Court’s decision in Hindustan Unilever Limited v Kwick Living (I) Private Limited on August 25 2026 highlights the uncertainty surrounding territorial jurisdiction in intellectual property (IP) disputes involving digital advertising, e-commerce, and online content. The court did not examine the merits of Hindustan Unilever Limited’s (HUL’s) trademark disparagement claim. Instead, it referred three important jurisdictional questions to a Larger Bench.
The Larger Bench’s answer may materially affect forum selection and the pleading of online infringement, disparagement, and unfair competition claims.
Background
HUL sued Kwick Living (Kwick) over its “War on What’s Hidden” advertising campaign. HUL alleged that the campaign made misleading and unsubstantiated claims that disparaged its Vim and Surf Excel products. The advertisements appeared on YouTube, Instagram, Kwick’s website, billboards, and other public-facing media. Their wide circulation brought the territorial reach of the alleged wrong to the centre of the jurisdictional dispute.
Kwick objected at the threshold to the Delhi High Court’s territorial jurisdiction. The court therefore addressed jurisdiction before considering the merits of HUL’s disparagement claims.
Kwick’s contentions
Kwick argued the following:
Both companies have registered offices in Mumbai, and HUL pleaded at least one impugned hoarding there;
HUL produced no invoice showing that Kwick’s products were actually sold in Delhi; and
A material part of the cause of action therefore arose in Mumbai, while online accessibility alone did not establish a Delhi nexus.
Relying on Indian Performing Rights Society Ltd. v Sanjay Dalia (2015), Kwick argued that when the plaintiff’s principal office and part of the cause of action coincide, the plaintiff must sue there rather than invoke a branch office elsewhere. Mumbai was therefore said to be the appropriate forum.
Kwick also relied on Ultra Home Construction Pvt. Ltd. v Purushottam Kumar Chaubey (2016). In that case, the Division Bench applied Sanjay Dalia and explained that Section 134(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and Section 62(2) of the Copyright Act, 1957 create an additional forum for an IP owner but do not confer an unrestricted choice of court. Broadly, these provisions allow a plaintiff to sue where it actually and voluntarily resides, carries on business, or personally works for gain, even if jurisdiction may not otherwise arise under Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). However, where the plaintiff carries on business through a subordinate office at the place where the cause of action arose, it should ordinarily sue there instead of selecting another forum on the strength of its principal office or a different branch. On that reasoning, Delhi lacked jurisdiction because the dispute arose at Deoghar, where the plaintiff was carrying on business locally.
Under Banyan Tree Holding (P) Ltd. v A. Murali Krishna Reddy (2009), Kwick submitted that website accessibility is insufficient without purposeful targeting, forum-directed commercial activity, or a forum-specific injury. It maintained that HUL had pleaded none of these adequately.
HUL’s contentions
HUL advanced a broader interpretation of territorial jurisdiction. It argued that:
The campaign was disseminated nationwide through social media and Kwick’s website and was accessible in Delhi; and
Delhi consumers could purchase products through the interactive website, creating a commercial nexus and part of the cause of action in Delhi.
HUL relied on Burger King Corporation v Techchand Shewakramani (2018) to argue that trademark ‘use’ includes advertising and promotion; dissemination of the impugned campaign in Delhi therefore contributed to the cause of action.
In World Wrestling Entertainment Inc. v Reshma Collection (2014), the Division Bench held that when Delhi customers could order, pay for, and receive goods through the plaintiff’s website, an essential part of its business occurred in Delhi despite the absence of a physical office. Unlike Banyan Tree, the case concerned the plaintiff’s online business presence under the special IP statutes.
HUL also cited Kohinoor Seed Fields India Pvt Ltd v Veda Seed Sciences Pvt Ltd (2025). The Division Bench did not treat online listings as sufficient by themselves; Delhi jurisdiction arose because a marketing agreement executed there formed a material part of the pleaded infringement cause of action.
HUL therefore contended that nationwide dissemination, coupled with a transactional website accessible to Delhi consumers, made the suit maintainable under Section 20 of the CPC.
The court’s analysis
The court found that the dispute exposed significant inconsistencies in the jurisprudence on territorial jurisdiction in IP matters, particularly where alleged wrongdoing occurs through digital platforms.
Reviewing the authorities, the court noted that Sanjay Dalia purposively limits the special IP jurisdiction provisions. The provisions facilitate enforcement but do not allow large corporations to select distant forums merely because they maintain branch offices nationwide. Where the cause of action arises at the plaintiff’s principal office, it should ordinarily sue there.
The decisions dealing with online activity do not follow a single test. World Wrestling Entertainment treats completed online transactions as evidence that the plaintiff carries on business in the forum. Banyan Tree focuses instead on the defendant’s conduct and asks whether the forum was purposefully targeted. Kohinoor Seed Fields followed a different route, finding jurisdiction on the basis of an independent contractual connection rather than the mere accessibility of online material.
The court identified four related but distinct approaches:
The restrictive forum-selection rule in Sanjay Dalia and Ultra Home Construction;
The purposeful-targeting test in Banyan Tree;
The transactional approach in World Wrestling Entertainment; and
The contractual cause-of-action analysis in Kohinoor Seed Fields.
The court also saw tension between Banyan Tree, which rejects jurisdiction based solely on accessibility, and decisions such as Nilesh Girkar v Zee Entertainment Enterprises Limited & Ors. (2025), which treated nationwide digital availability as sufficient to constitute part of a cause of action in Delhi. It cautioned that accessibility alone could otherwise permit suit in virtually any Indian court, weakening territorial limits and encouraging forum shopping.
Questions referred to the Larger Bench
The court referred three questions to the Larger Bench:
Whether IP suits are governed solely by Section 20 of the CPC, Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act, or Section 62 of the Copyright Act, or by an interplay of all these provisions and if so, how.
Whether a corporate plaintiff must sue only at the place of its principal or registered office when a part of the cause of action has arisen there.
What jurisdictional rule should govern online transactions in IP disputes in light of the conflicting approaches taken in Banyan Tree, World Wrestling Entertainment, and Kohinoor Seed Fields.
Implications for brand owners and practitioners
Practitioners should plead the territorial connection with care. The plaint should explain, as applicable:
How the plaintiff carries on online business in the forum;
How the defendant targeted consumers there;
Whether any transaction actually took place there; and
Whether a contract or other material event forms part of the cause of action.
The ruling may reshape forum-selection strategy by clarifying the relationship between Section 20 of the CPC and the special IP provisions, and by identifying when accessibility, transactions, or targeted activity create a sufficient territorial nexus without enabling forum shopping.
Concluding remarks
The reference gives the Larger Bench an important opportunity to bring greater coherence to jurisdictional rules developed for traditional disputes and their application to e-commerce, social media advertising, and nationwide digital dissemination. Its decision should clarify how closely an online dispute must be connected with the chosen forum. That guidance will have a direct bearing on litigation strategy and enforcement planning for brand owners and IP practitioners.
