Where can a brand owner sue for trademark infringement in India? After 3 November 2026, the Delhi High Court will hear the case only if Delhi has a real link to the dispute. In ABD Maestro v Great Galleon, Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav returned 17 plaints. Goods that can be ordered online from Delhi, or bought there by the plaintiff's own investigator, were not enough.
The lead case is ABD Maestro Private Limited v Great Galleon Ventures Ltd, CS(COMM) 987/2026, decided with 16 other suits. The plaintiffs included Marico, Zydus Wellness, Beiersdorf, Kajaria Ceramics and JSW MG Motor. The court noted that in more than half of the suits neither side was based in Delhi.
- Infringement and passing off must each be shown to fall within the court's jurisdiction. If any relief fails, the whole suit cannot proceed.
- A website or marketplace listing that can be seen in Delhi does not by itself give Delhi jurisdiction. The plaintiff must show purposeful targeting and actual commercial transactions with buyers in Delhi.
- Trap purchases by the plaintiff's investigator ordinarily cannot be relied on to found jurisdiction, subject to two narrow exceptions.
- The "principal place of business" in a GST registration is not the "principal office" that decides where a company carries on business.
- All 17 plaints were returned under Order VII Rule 10 CPC, with liberty to seek directions under Order VII Rule 10A.
Why the court acted
The court found that Delhi had been treated as a forum for the whole country. In paragraph 4 it said a statute cannot confer "an unbridled, unguided and uncanalised right" on a plaintiff to create jurisdiction. It warned that otherwise a defendant could be sued equally "at Ladakh and at Jhumri Telaiya".
The judgment notes that another bench has referred the jurisdiction question to a larger Bench (2026:DHC:7198). The court relied on Ashok Sadarangani v Union of India. A pending reference does not stop courts from deciding cases on existing law.
What the court decided
The conclusions are set out in paragraph 295. The main ones are these.
Each relief is tested separately. Infringement and passing off are distinct causes of action. In the court's words, if a court lacks jurisdiction for any of the reliefs, "the suit cannot proceed." A plaintiff can no longer bring a passing off claim to Delhi on the back of an infringement claim.
"Carries on business" follows the Supreme Court. The phrase appears in Section 20 CPC, Section 134(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and Section 62(2) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Its meaning is governed by Patel Roadways, Dhodha House and Sanjay Dalia. A company with several offices carries on business at its principal office, ordinarily its registered office. It carries on business at a branch only if the cause of action arose there. The Division Bench in World Wrestling Entertainment v Reshma Collection treated a website as a virtual shop. The court held that this ruling no longer governs the question.
Passing off needs real sales in the forum. Cause of action arises only where the defendant makes commercial sales to distributors, wholesalers or retailers within the court's area. Mere availability of goods there is not enough.
Online infringement needs targeting and transactions. Following Banyan Tree v Murali Krishna Reddy, the plaintiff must show that the defendant purposefully targeted people within the forum, causing harm there. It must also show commercial transactions actually concluded with them through the website.
Investigators cannot manufacture jurisdiction. As a rule, an order placed by the plaintiff's investigator with a Delhi delivery address amounts to "concocting jurisdiction". Two exceptions remain. One is where no other court would have jurisdiction without the purchase. The other is where the defendant clearly sells in Delhi through retailers or stockists, and the investigator only records it.
No "dynamic effect" and no GST shortcut. Jurisdiction cannot rest on the effect of infringement being felt where the plaintiff is based. A defendant's GST registration showing a Delhi "principal place of business" does not make Delhi its principal office.
Forum non conveniens applies. A slender part of the cause of action in Delhi is not enough. The court may decline the suit if the material and essential part arose elsewhere. Bare pleadings without documents will be ignored.
Paragraph 296 adds a table of six scenarios. A plaintiff whose principal office is in Delhi can still sue there under Section 134(2) or Section 62(2). A plaintiff with only a branch in Delhi can sue there only if the cause of action also arose in Delhi.
What the court did not decide
- It did not decide any dispute on the merits. Interim injunctions were not examined.
- It did not finally settle the law. A larger Bench reference is pending, and appeals from this judgment are possible.
- It did not say the plaintiffs cannot sue at all. Each plaint was returned to be presented before an appropriate court.
- The court also held that several earlier Delhi decisions do not bind, including Kohinoor Seed Fields and Tata Sons v Hakunamatata. That is a single judge's view. A Division Bench may see it differently.
How the US, Europe and the UK compare
United States. A trademark plaintiff must show the court has personal jurisdiction over the defendant under the due process clause. Courts ask whether the defendant purposefully directed its activity at the forum state. A website that can be viewed everywhere is generally not enough on its own. The Delhi tests of targeting and concluded transactions are close to this approach.
European Union. For an EU trade mark, Article 125 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 sets the forum. The owner can sue where the defendant is domiciled or established. Under Article 125(5) it can also sue where an act of infringement occurred. That court rules only on acts within its own State. In AMS Neve v Heritage Audio (C-172/18), the CJEU read the same rule in the earlier 2009 Regulation. The owner may sue where the consumers or traders targeted by online advertising and offers are located.
United Kingdom. In Lifestyle Equities v Amazon [2024] UKSC 8, the UK Supreme Court asked whether Amazon used the marks in the UK. That depended on whether its US website targeted UK consumers. That is judged objectively, from the view of the average consumer. A site that UK users can merely access is not enough. That case concerned infringement rather than the choice of court, but the targeting idea is the same.
The common thread is targeting. Indian law now asks a similar question, and adds a requirement of actual transactions in the forum.
Practical steps
- Brand owners should choose the forum from the facts. Sue where the defendant's principal office is, where your own principal office is, or where real sales to distributors and retailers took place.
- Brand owners should file documents with the plaint. Invoices to stockists, delivery records and evidence of targeting carry weight. Bare averments will be ignored.
- Brand owners pleading both infringement and passing off should check jurisdiction for each claim separately. If passing off fails on territory, consider whether to sue for infringement alone.
- Brand owners with pending Delhi suits should review their jurisdiction paragraphs now. Defendants may cite this judgment in return applications.
- Defendants sued far from home should raise territorial jurisdiction at the first opportunity, through an application under Order VII Rule 10 CPC.
- Foreign brand owners enforcing in India should not assume Delhi is available. Section 134(2) helps only where the plaintiff itself carries on business in Delhi as now defined.
We act for brand owners in trade mark clearance, registration and enforcement across India. See our trademark services. For related reading, see our notes on using a registered trademark without permission and well known trademarks across classes in India.
Frequently asked questions
Can I file a trademark infringement suit in Delhi if the infringing goods are sold online?
Only if the defendant purposefully targeted buyers in Delhi and actually concluded sales with them there. After ABD Maestro v Great Galleon, online availability alone does not give the Delhi High Court jurisdiction.
Where can a trademark owner sue under Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act?
Section 134(2) lets the owner sue where it actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business. For a company, that is its principal office, or a branch where the cause of action also arose.
Can a trap purchase by an investigator create jurisdiction?
Ordinarily no. The Delhi High Court held that this amounts to concocting jurisdiction, with two narrow exceptions set out in paragraph 295 of the judgment.