Delhi HC draws line, says national capital cannot be default venue for every brand dispute
New Delhi may no longer be an easy first stop for companies fighting brand infringement cases.
The Delhi high court returned 17 intellectual property (IP) suits on Tuesday, warning businesses against choosing the national capital simply because it is a convenient place to fight legal battles. The court described such practices as “forum shopping” and “litigation tourism.”
Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav returned the cases involving companies such as Nivea, Kajaria Ceramics, Marico, Zydus Wellness and JSW MG Motor India. The court said companies cannot file cases in Delhi merely because rival products are available online, websites can be accessed in the city or products ordered by investigators are delivered here. They must show that the dispute has a genuine connection with Delhi.
“As a matter of principle as well, allowing jurisdiction to be conferred through transactions entered into between an investigator of the plaintiff and a given defendant seems unjust and unfair. Allowing this to happen would allow litigants to engage in forum shopping and litigation tourism,” the court said.
Forum shopping refers to the practice of litigants or lawyers intentionally filing cases in a specific court or jurisdiction that will likely give them a favourable judgement. Litigation tourism is when plaintiffs file cases in favourable venues, regardless of a genuine connection to the parties or the events.
The court added that companies were trying to create a connection with places far from where they were based or conducted business.
“The common denominator in the present batch of matters dealt with in this judgment is an attempt by the plaintiff to disturb the natural flow of litigation,” it observed.
The court noted that some companies relied on their goods and services tax registration and principal place of business in Delhi to claim that the city had jurisdiction. However, it held that a GST registration in Delhi, by itself, does not establish that a company carries on its business in the city or give its courts the power to hear the case.
Beiersdorf AG and its Indian subsidiary, Nivea India, alleged that businesses in Gujarat were selling skincare products under the Eucerin brand without authorization. Marico accused Shree Uday Oil and Food Industries of copying distinctive features of its Parachute coconut oil packaging.
Zydus alleged that rival businesses were selling Glucose-D products using packaging and visual elements similar to its popular Glucon-D brand. JSW MG Motor India accused former dealer Tristar Auto Agencies in Visakhapatnam of continuing to use the MG brand and identity after the dealership was terminated in November 2024.
The ruling could force companies to rethink where they file brand infringement cases. They may now need to provide stronger evidence of actual sales and business activity in the state where they approach the court.
However, the ruling does not prevent companies from approaching the Delhi High Court when a dispute has a genuine connection with the city. The court said businesses have the right to seek legal protection but cannot insist that their case be heard in a particular court.
The Delhi high court set up an Intellectual Property Division in July 2021, which became fully functional under separate rules in February 2022. This strengthened Delhi's position as a major centre for IP litigation.
Companies continue to approach the court over a wide range of disputes, including online piracy of films and sports broadcasts, misuse of celebrities' identities, AI-generated deepfakes, patent and trademark infringement, counterfeit products, copyright violations and misleading advertisements.
The court said convenience alone cannot decide where a company should file its case.
Delhi received 4,263 IP suits from January 2021 to July 2026, compared with 3,076 in Mumbai, The Print reported on 7 October, citing CourtsDataLab data. Almost 97% of Delhi's cases received their first hearing order within a week, compared with 21% in Mumbai.
In many of the 17 suits returned on Tuesday, neither the company filing the suit nor the main defendant was based in Delhi. The plaintiffs relied on online marketplaces, websites, social media pages, alleged distribution networks and test purchases to establish a connection with the capital.
The court said simply viewing a product or website in Delhi does not give the city jurisdiction. Companies must show that the seller was actually targeting customers in Delhi and that genuine business transactions had taken place. The judge warned that accepting such practices would allow companies to choose almost any place in India to sue a rival.
The court clarified that investigators could purchase products from retailers, distributors or stockists in Delhi to establish that a rival is already selling goods in the city. However, companies cannot arrange purchases themselves simply to create a reason to file a case in Delhi.
Krishna Yadav is a Senior Correspondent at Mint, based in New Delhi, and part of the corporate bureau. He joined the newsroom as a trainee in 2023 and quickly grew into his current role. He writes on legal and regulatory developments in corporate India, with a focus on insolvency, taxation, company law, and policy. His reporting includes tracking and breaking key legal stories from the Supreme Court, Delhi High Court, NCLT, and NCLAT.<br><br>With a background in law, Krishna is known for simplifying complex legal developments into clear, accessible stories for readers. His work focuses on trends in corporate law and policy that affect businesses. This ranges from explaining tax disputes—like whether coconut hair oil is edible—to writing on why celebrities are seeking personal rights protection. He closely tracks India’s insolvency system, covering issues such as creditor losses, gaps in the process, and challenges in how the framework works in practice.<br><br>Krishna also tracks developments within law firms—covering hiring trends, how firms help companies navigate global challenges, and how the legal industry is adapting to artificial intelligence. Beyond legal reporting, he has written long-form pieces, including on-ground coverage of the 2024 general elections, capturing the scale and logistics of polling across India.<br><br>Outside work, he enjoys travelling, exploring new places, and reading about geopolitics and history.
Get Latest real-time updates
Catch all the Business News , Corporate news , Breaking News Events and Latest News Updates on Live Mint. Download The Mint News App to get Daily Market Updates.
More
✕
Wait for it…
Oops! Looks like you have exceeded the limit to bookmark the image. Remove some to bookmark this image.