Where Can You Sue? Territorial Jurisdiction in Indian IP Disputes

Why the choice of court matters

When the owner of any intellectual property discovers an infringement, deciding what action to take is only the first step. The next question is which court can hear the case. Territorial jurisdiction in India is governed by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and the relevant intellectual property statute. Filing in the wrong forum can delay proceedings and can end in the plaint being returned for presentation before the proper court, as happened at first instance in Kohinoor Seed Fields, a trade mark suit that was returned for want of jurisdiction and had to go on appeal before the Delhi High Court restored it in December 2025.^[1]

This article sets out the general rule, the extra forum that trade mark and copyright owners enjoy, the limits the courts have placed on it, how the rules apply to online infringement, and what to check before filing. The position is as of 5 November 2026.

The general rule: Section 20 of the CPC

Section 20 is the starting point. A suit may be instituted in a court within whose local limits (a) the defendant, or each defendant, at the time the suit begins, actually and voluntarily resides, carries on business or personally works for gain; (b) any of several defendants does so, with the leave of the court or the acquiescence of the others; or (c) the cause of action arises, wholly or in part. The Explanation deals with corporations. A corporation is deemed to carry on business at its sole or principal office in India or, in respect of any cause of action arising at a place where it also has a subordinate office, at that place.^[2]

Patents and designs. The Patents Act, 1970 and the Designs Act, 2000 do not give the plaintiff an extra forum based on its own place of business, so jurisdiction in patent and design infringement suits is ordinarily determined under Section 20. The statutes add two features. Section 104 of the Patents Act requires an infringement suit to be filed in a court not inferior to a District Court, and where the defendant files a counter-claim for revocation, the suit and the counter-claim are transferred to the High Court.^[3] Under Section 22(4) of the Designs Act, a suit in which a ground for cancellation of the design is taken as a defence is likewise transferred to the High Court. In S.D. Containers v. Mold-Tek Packaging (1 December 2020) the Supreme Court held that this transfer is a ministerial act once cancellation is sought, and that the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 does not displace it.^[4]

An additional forum for trade mark and copyright owners

Section 134(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and Section 62(2) of the Copyright Act, 1957 each provide an additional forum, notwithstanding the CPC. A suit may be instituted in the District Court within whose local limits the person instituting it actually and voluntarily resides, carries on business or personally works for gain.^[5] The Supreme Court has described these provisions as prescribing an additional ground “over and above” the normal grounds in Section 20, not as limiting them.^[2]

Two limits are worth noting. First, Section 134(2) operates for suits for infringement of a registered trade mark and suits relating to a right in a registered trade mark, which are clauses (a) and (b) of Section 134(1). It does not extend to a suit for passing off alone, which is clause (c).^[5] In Banyan Tree the Delhi High Court described Section 134(2) as a “long arm” provision only in a limited sense, confined to infringement actions by plaintiffs carrying on business within the forum.^[6] Second, the additional forum does not give the plaintiff an unrestricted choice, as the next section explains.

Preventing forum shopping

The additional forum raises an obvious concern: a plaintiff may choose a court where it has only a token office, even though the dispute has little connection with that place. The Supreme Court has dealt with this in three ways.

What “carries on business” means. In Dhodha House v. S.K. Maingi (decided 15 December 2005; (2006) 9 SCC 41) the Court held that carrying on business at a place does not require the owner’s physical presence. It can be done through an agent or manager, and means having an interest in a business there, a voice in what is done, a share in the gain or loss and some control. But a corporation carries on business at a subordinate office only for causes of action arising there, and the fact that its goods are sold at a place does not mean that it carries on business there. An advertisement in a journal does not confer jurisdiction either.^[2]

The subordinate-office rule. In Indian Performing Right Society v. Sanjay Dalia (1 July 2015; (2015) 10 SCC 161) the Supreme Court held that a plaintiff may sue where it resides or carries on business even if no part of the cause of action arose there, but subject to a restriction: where the plaintiff has a principal office in one place and a subordinate office in another, and the cause of action arises at the place of the subordinate office, the suit must be filed there and not at the principal office. The Court read the Explanation to Section 20 into Sections 62(2) and 134(2), reasoning that the additional forum was meant to let plaintiffs sue conveniently, and not to let them pick a distant court that suits neither side.^[5]

How the Delhi High Court has applied it. In Ultra Home Construction v. Purushottam Kumar Chaubey (20 January 2016) a Division Bench set out four situations for a plaintiff that is a corporation. With a sole office, it can sue at that place even if the cause of action arose elsewhere. With a principal and a subordinate office, it can sue at the principal office if the cause of action arose there or at a third place where it has no office, but if the cause arose at the subordinate office’s place, it can sue only there. In that case the plaintiff’s principal office was in Delhi, its hotel at Deogarh in Jharkhand was a subordinate office, the cause of action arose at Deogarh, and the Delhi suit could not be maintained.^[7]

Online infringement

A website is accessible across India, but accessibility alone does not confer jurisdiction on every court. The cases separate two questions: whether the defendant’s website gives rise to a cause of action in the forum, and whether the plaintiff’s website means the plaintiff carries on business there.

The defendant’s website: Banyan Tree. In Banyan Tree Holding v. A. Murali Krishna Reddy (Delhi High Court, 2009) the Court considered when hosting a universally accessible website lends jurisdiction to the forum court. It held that the plaintiff must show that the defendant “purposefully availed” itself of the forum’s jurisdiction, by prima facie showing that the defendant’s activity through the website was aimed at concluding commercial transactions with users there. The test concerns the defendant’s website, and a website that merely exists and can be viewed in the forum is not enough.^[6]

The plaintiff’s website: WWE. In World Wrestling Entertainment v. Reshma Collection (15 October 2014) a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court reversed a single judge who had held that the accessibility of the plaintiff’s website did not give the court jurisdiction. As the Division Bench in Kohinoor later summarised it, the existence of a plaintiff’s website over which a commercial transaction can be concluded was treated as sufficient to amount to “carrying on business” in Delhi under Section 134(2) and Section 62(2), and the actual conclusion of a transaction was no longer indispensable.^[1]

The latest word: Kohinoor Seed Fields (December 2025)

The dispute. Kohinoor, a seed company with its head office in Delhi, sued Veda Seed Sciences for infringement of its registered marks TADAAKHA and SADANAND, and for passing off. The parties had a co-marketing agreement, executed in Delhi, that allowed Veda to market Kohinoor’s hybrid cotton seeds under the marks. Kohinoor alleged that Veda used the marks on hybrids that Kohinoor did not produce, in breach of that agreement, and that Veda’s products were available on e-commerce platforms such as IndiaMart. A single judge allowed an application under Order VII Rule 10 of the CPC and returned the plaint for want of territorial jurisdiction.^[1]

The decision. On 3 December 2025 a Division Bench (C. Hari Shankar and Om Prakash Shukla JJ.) set aside the order and restored the suit.^{[1, 8]} The Bench held that: (1) the fact that the asserted marks were registered within the Delhi jurisdiction was itself a factor entitling Kohinoor to sue in Delhi, as distinct from the mere filing of an application for registration, which would not do so;^[8] (2) the Marketing Agreement formed part of the cause of action, so the court within whose jurisdiction it was admittedly executed could hear the suit;^[1] (3) on the e-commerce platforms, the single judge was right that the mere existence of an interactive website of the defendant, accessible in the forum, is not enough and a commercial transaction within the jurisdiction must also be shown, but he was wrong to hold that Kohinoor could not sue because the listings were put up by third parties. Whether Veda was directly or indirectly involved in the listings is “at best, a matter of trial”;^[8] and (4) Kohinoor’s right to sue in Delhi was not divested by Ultra Home Construction on these facts. Reports say the Bench considered that reading Section 134 to send a plaintiff with a principal office in Delhi to its subordinate office would amount to rewriting the section.^[8]

What it does not decide. The decision does not establish that the mere accessibility of an online listing is sufficient in every case, and it turns on the plaint, the agreement and the registrations that the plaintiff relied on. It is also not the final word. Veda challenged it in the Supreme Court, which on 20 February 2026 appointed a former Chief Justice of India to mediate and stayed further proceedings in the suit. We have not checked what has happened since, so its present status should be confirmed.^[9]

Commercial Courts and IP divisions

The Commercial Courts Act, 2015 brought qualifying intellectual property disputes within the category of commercial disputes. Depending on the nature and value of the claim, a suit is filed before the appropriate Commercial Court or the Commercial Division of a High Court. In High Courts with ordinary original civil jurisdiction, suits transferred under Section 22(4) of the Designs Act or Section 104 of the Patents Act go to the Commercial Division.^[4] A commercial suit must also meet the requirement of pre-institution mediation unless urgent interim relief is sought; see our article on mandatory pre-institution mediation under the Commercial Courts Act.

Certain High Courts have also set up specialised intellectual property divisions. A specialised court does not by itself confer territorial jurisdiction. The plaintiff must still satisfy the statutory requirements discussed above.

A checklist before you file

1. Identify the right. Patent or design: Section 20 CPC applies, and a revocation or cancellation plea will move the case to the High Court. Registered trade mark or copyright: Section 134(2) or Section 62(2) is also available. Passing off alone: Section 20 only.

2. Map your offices and the cause of action. If you have a subordinate office where the infringement occurred, expect to sue there and not at your head office (Sanjay Dalia, Ultra Home Construction), and read Kohinoor carefully on how far that rule goes.

3. Plead the jurisdictional facts. An application under Order VII Rule 10 is decided on the plaint and its documents, so plead where the marks are registered, where any agreement was made or performed, where the defendant sells or offers goods, and, for online activity, the nature of the defendant’s website or listing, the ability to order from the forum and the effect felt there.^[1]

4. Do not rely on accessibility. For the defendant’s website, plead purposeful availment and facts showing the forum was targeted (Banyan Tree).^[6]

5. Check the latest authority before filing. Kohinoor is under challenge in the Supreme Court and the suit was stayed in February 2026. Our intellectual property practice advises on forum selection and enforcement. This article is general information, not legal advice.

Frequently asked questions

Where can I file a patent or design infringement suit? Ordinarily where the defendant resides or carries on business, or where the cause of action arises, under Section 20 of the CPC, in a court not inferior to a District Court. If the defendant seeks revocation or cancellation, the suit and counter-claim move to the High Court.

Can I sue for trade mark infringement where my own office is? Yes, under Section 134(2) of the Trade Marks Act, if you actually and voluntarily reside, carry on business or personally work for gain there, subject to the subordinate-office rule in Sanjay Dalia. Section 134(2) does not cover a suit for passing off alone.

Does an infringing listing on an online marketplace let me sue anywhere? No. The existence of an interactive website accessible in the forum is not enough without a commercial transaction there, and the plaintiff should plead how the defendant targeted the forum. In Kohinoor the Delhi High Court sent the question of the defendant’s involvement in the listings to trial.

What happens if I file in the wrong court? The court may return the plaint for presentation before the proper court under Order VII Rule 10 of the CPC, which delays the case.

Conclusion

Territorial jurisdiction in Indian IP disputes depends on the right involved, the statutory provision relied on and the connection between the dispute and the chosen court. Trade mark and copyright owners have an additional option under Sections 134(2) and 62(2), while patent and design suits ordinarily rely on Section 20 of the CPC. As commercial transactions move online, deciding where an infringement occurs and which court may hear it will remain a central question. Assessing it at the outset, supported by careful pleadings and evidence, helps avoid avoidable procedural complications.