The Delhi High Court has referred important questions concerning territorial jurisdiction in intellectual property disputes involving online advertising and e-commerce to a Larger Bench. The issue arose in a suit filed by Hindustan Unilever Limited (HUL) against Kwick Living (I) Private Limited over its “War on What’s Hidden” advertising campaign concerning HUL’s Vim and Surf Excel products.
Justice A.J. Bhambhani, in an order pronounced on August 25, 2026, confined the present stage of the proceedings to the question of territorial jurisdiction. The Court did not decide the merits of HUL’s allegations or its request for restraint against the campaign.
Background of the Case
HUL sought a permanent injunction against Kwick Living from broadcasting, publishing, hosting or communicating the disputed advertising campaign to the public. HUL alleged that the campaign targeted and disparaged its products sold under the Vim and Surf Excel marks through billboards, social media, YouTube, Instagram and the defendant’s website.
Kwick Living raised a preliminary objection, arguing that the Delhi High Court lacked territorial jurisdiction. It pointed out that HUL’s registered office was in Mumbai and contended that the plaint did not establish a sufficient connection between the alleged cause of action and Delhi.
HUL, however, relied on the accessibility of the campaign in Delhi and the defendant’s online commercial activities, including the availability of its products for sale in the city. It invoked Section 20(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure, Section 134(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, and Section 62(2) of the Copyright Act, 1957.
Court’s Observation
The Court noted conflicting approaches in earlier decisions concerning territorial jurisdiction in online intellectual property disputes. These included questions about whether mere online accessibility is sufficient, whether purposeful targeting or commercial activity is necessary, and how the principal office of a corporation affects the choice of forum.
The Court also considered the Supreme Court’s decision in Sanjay Dalia, which adopts a restrictive approach to prevent corporations from choosing a distant forum when the cause of action has arisen where their principal office is located. At the same time, subsequent Delhi High Court decisions had adopted differing approaches to online commercial activity and territorial jurisdiction.
The judgment observed:
“This would throw the very concept of territorial jurisdiction of courts to the winds.”
The Court found that the competing lines of authority required authoritative consideration by a Larger Bench.
Decision
Justice Bhambhani framed three questions for consideration by a Larger Bench: whether intellectual property suits are governed solely by Section 20 of the CPC or also by the special jurisdiction provisions under the Trade Marks and Copyright Acts; whether a plaintiff must sue only where its principal or registered office is situated when part of the cause of action arises elsewhere; and what jurisdictional rule should govern online transactions in IP disputes.
The Registry was directed to place the judgment before the Chief Justice for constitution of an appropriately constituted Larger Bench.
The Court directed that the needful be done within one week.
Case Details
Case Title: Hindustan Unilever Limited v. Kwick Living (I) Private Limited
Case Number: CS(COMM) 904/2026 & I.A. 25215/2026
Judge: Justice A.J. Bhambhani
Decision Date: August 25, 2026
-300x169.webp)
