The Delhi High Court has recently highlighted that intellectual property lawsuits cannot be initiated across the country simply because products or advertisements are accessible online. This clarification came in the case of Hindustan Unilever Limited (HUL) vs. Kwick Living (India) Private Limited where Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani emphasized that the internet should not serve as a basis for claiming territorial jurisdiction anywhere in India for intellectual property disputes.
Justice Bhambhani’s observations led to the referral of three pivotal questions regarding territorial jurisdiction in IP disputes, especially those involving digital transactions, to a larger bench. The Court asserted, “The advent of the internet and the accessibility of goods at any remote location via the world-wide-web cannot make the principles of law relating to territorial jurisdiction of courts so diluted or vague that a corporation could sue anywhere in the country.”
Key Questions for the Larger Bench
The Court has directed a larger bench to address the following questions:
- Are intellectual property suits governed solely by Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, by Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act, or Section 62 of the Copyright Act, or is there an interplay of all these provisions? If so, how do they interact?
- Must a corporate plaintiff file a lawsuit only where its principal or registered office is located if part of the cause of action has occurred there?
- What jurisdictional rules should apply to online transactions in IP disputes, considering conflicting approaches in previous Delhi High Court rulings?
Background of the Case
The case originated from a lawsuit filed by Hindustan Unilever Limited (HUL) against Kwick Living (India) Private Limited. HUL sought to prevent Kwick Living from continuing an advertising campaign titled “War on What’s Hidden,” which allegedly targeted HUL’s Vim and Surf Excel products with unverified and misleading claims.
Kwick Living contested the Delhi High Court’s jurisdiction, stating that both companies are headquartered in Mumbai and that the disputed advertising was primarily in Mumbai. HUL countered this by noting its corporate presence in Delhi and the availability of the campaign on platforms such as YouTube and Instagram, which consumers in Delhi could access. HUL argued that this constituted part of the cause of action arising in Delhi.
More Read
Judicial Analysis and Referral
In its analysis, the Court reviewed several precedents on jurisdiction in IP disputes, noting inconsistencies in the legal standards employed by different courts. While some rulings required evidence of targeted content towards consumers within a particular court’s territory, others accepted the mere ability to transact online as establishing jurisdiction.
The Court cautioned against allowing companies to file suits anywhere in India solely because their online content or products were accessible there. Consequently, the matter was referred to a larger bench for a definitive resolution on these jurisdictional questions.
The registry has been instructed to present the judgment to the Chief Justice within one week, who will consider forming the larger Bench. The Court did not grant interim relief to HUL.
Senior Advocates Amit Sibal and Swathi Sukumar, along with their team from Saikrishna & Associates, represented HUL. Kwick Living was represented by Senior Advocate Chander M Lall, assisted by Fidus Law Chambers.
