Delhi High Court warns against entertaining IP cases with trivial links to Delhi, citing jurisdiction 'Lakshman Rekha'

KanoonHQ Legal Gazette · AI-generated brief from the source linked below. How briefs are made

Published 4 November 2026

Case: Not stated in source
Court: High Court of Delhi
Bench: Justice C Hari Shankar
Citation: Not stated in source
Statutes: Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s.20
Source: Bar & Bench

Bottom Line Up Front (BLUF)

The Delhi High Court, per Justice C Hari Shankar, questioned its practice of entertaining intellectual property cases based on trivial jurisdictional links to Delhi, warning against crossing the 'Lakshman Rekha' of territorial jurisdiction. The court emphasized that a mere presence of a defendant's website or online accessibility in Delhi is insufficient to establish jurisdiction under Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Ratio Decidendi · Legal Principle Established

The mere accessibility of a defendant's website or online presence in Delhi, without any targeted commercial activity or actual transaction within Delhi, is insufficient to establish territorial jurisdiction for an intellectual property suit under Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Courts must exercise caution and not entertain cases based on trivial or contrived jurisdictional links.

Practice & Procedural Impact for Advocates

Advocates filing IP suits in Delhi must demonstrate substantial and targeted commercial activity by the defendant within Delhi, beyond mere website accessibility. Litigants should be prepared for stricter scrutiny of jurisdictional claims, potentially leading to dismissal if the link to Delhi is tenuous. Counsel should carefully review the 'effects test' and 'purposeful availment' principles in IP jurisdiction.

Key Legal Takeaways

1Mere website accessibility in Delhi does not confer territorial jurisdiction for IP suits.
2Courts must avoid entertaining cases based on trivial jurisdictional links.
3Section 20 of the CPC requires a more substantial connection for jurisdiction.
4The 'Lakshman Rekha' of jurisdiction must be respected by the courts.

The Legal Issue Justice C Hari Shankar of the Delhi High Court raised concerns regarding the court's practice of entertaining intellectual property (IP) cases where the jurisdictional link to Delhi was tenuous or trivial. The court questioned whether the mere accessibility of a defendant's website or online presence in Delhi was sufficient to establish territorial jurisdiction, particularly under Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC).

Court's Reasoning The Delhi High Court observed that while it has been a 'pioneer' in IP jurisprudence, it must not overstep its territorial boundaries. Justice Shankar stated that the court has, at times, 'crossed the Lakshman Rekha' by entertaining cases based on minimal connections to Delhi. The court clarified that for jurisdiction to be established under Section 20 of the CPC, there must be more than just the defendant's website being accessible in Delhi. There needs to be evidence of targeted commercial activity or actual transactions occurring within Delhi that give rise to the cause of action. The court emphasized that a 'trivial' link is insufficient and that courts should not 'contrive' jurisdiction.

What Follows The court's observations serve as a caution to litigants and advocates to ensure that jurisdictional claims in IP matters are based on substantial and demonstrable connections to Delhi. While the specific outcome of the case in which these observations were made is not detailed, the court's stance indicates a stricter approach to territorial jurisdiction in future IP litigation. This may lead to increased scrutiny of plaints and potentially more dismissals of cases where the jurisdictional basis is weak or merely incidental.