The Delhi High Court has returned plaints in 17 intellectual-property suits after examining their territorial connection with Delhi. Its 246-page judgment rejects attempts to create jurisdiction through website access or strategically arranged purchases, while explaining when genuine online transactions and other connections can support a suit.
New Delhi: A litigant cannot make Delhi the venue for an intellectual-property dispute simply by pointing to an accessible website or arranging for goods to reach a Delhi address, the High Court has held in a common judgment returning 17 plaints for presentation before an appropriate court [ABD Maestro Private Limited v. Great Galleon Ventures Ltd. and connected suits].
Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav delivered the judgment on November 3, 2026. It examines Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, Section 134(2) of the Trade Marks Act and Section 62(2) of the Copyright Act, alongside the distinction between having jurisdiction and being the appropriate forum to exercise it.
The outcome concerns where the suits should proceed. It does not decide whether the defendants ultimately infringed the plaintiffs’ intellectual-property rights. Paragraph 423 returns the plaints under Order VII Rule 10 read with Section 151 CPC; paragraph 424 permits the plaintiffs to apply for appropriate directions under Rule 10A.
What the plaintiffs argued
The Court recorded submissions that an infringement and passing-off suit could be brought where a website displaying the disputed products was accessible and transactions could be completed. The plaintiffs also relied on business presence and purchases made through online marketplaces, including deliveries to addresses chosen in Delhi.
The judge rejected an interpretation that would give a plaintiff an unrestricted ability to manufacture a territorial connection. The existence of specialised intellectual-property facilities in Delhi did not displace the allocation of jurisdiction among courts.
Online access and actual transactions
In its consolidated conclusions at paragraph 295, the Court said a plaintiff relying on website activity must demonstrate purposeful targeting of people within the forum’s territory, resulting injury there, and commercially concluded transactions between the defendant and people within that jurisdiction.
The judgment recognises a qualification: the requirement to show concluded transactions prima facie may be relaxed where the plaintiff cannot invoke the additional forums under Section 134(2) or Section 62(2), and the defendant has no presence in India.
Its illustrative guidance also says that Delhi-based social-media followers or traffic are not, by themselves, enough. Nor can the presence of a marketplace, domain registrar or web host added merely as a formal party substitute for the relevant connection of the contesting defendant.
Investigators and the choice of forum
The Court generally disapproved of using an investigator or another person set up by the plaintiff to create jurisdiction. It distinguished an investigator who merely documents sales already taking place through the defendant’s retailers, distributors or stockists. It also preserved an exception where the pleadings and documents prima facie show that, without the investigator, a cause of action under Section 20(c) could not be maintained before another court.
Separately, the judge held that the doctrine of forum non-conveniens applies to civil suits. Even after statutory maintainability is established, the court may consider whether another competent forum has the material, integral and essential connection with the dispute, rather than an incidental or slender one. Paragraphs 298–300 explain this inquiry through examples, including purchases strategically directed to a Delhi address.
How the ruling applied to ABD Maestro
In the lead suit, the Court noted that the plaintiff’s principal place of business and registered office were in Mumbai, while the defendant’s registered office was in Indore. The disputed product was not sold in Delhi, and its image carried a restriction indicating sale in Madhya Pradesh only.
The defendant’s GST registration describing a Delhi location as its principal place of business did not resolve the CPC jurisdiction question: the judgment distinguished the meaning of that expression under the GST law. It also found no commercially concluded website transaction with people within Delhi and noted the absence of pleading about the defendant’s Delhi excise licence.
On those grounds, the lead plaint was returned, alongside the other 16 plaints addressed in the common judgment. The ruling provides detailed guidance for choosing the forum in IP litigation, while leaving the underlying infringement disputes for the appropriate courts.
Case: ABD Maestro Private Limited v. Great Galleon Ventures Ltd. and 16 connected suits
Lead case number: CS(COMM) 987/2026
Court: High Court of Delhi
Bench: Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav
Decision date: November 3, 2026
Outcome: 17 plaints returned for presentation before an appropriate court; liberty to seek directions under Order VII Rule 10A CPC.