The Delhi High Court has returned the plaints in 17 commercial intellectual property suits because it lacks territorial jurisdiction over them. Its main holdings: a website that can be reached from Delhi does not by itself give the Court jurisdiction, and purchases arranged by a plaintiff's investigator generally cannot create it. The common judgment was pronounced on 3 November 2026 in ABD Maestro Pvt. Ltd. v. Great Galleon Ventures Ltd. [CS(COMM) 987/2026] and connected matters. It notes that in more than half of these suits, neither party was located in Delhi.

The facts

The suits covered trade mark, copyright and trade dress infringement and passing off. The plaintiffs included Beiersdorf, Marico, Zydus Wellness, JSW MG Motor and Kajaria Ceramics. To justify suing in Delhi, they pointed to websites accessible in the city, orders on e-marketplaces with Delhi delivery addresses (often placed by investigators), and goods said to be available in Delhi markets.

In the lead case, ABD Maestro is based in Mumbai and accused Indore-based Great Galleon of copying its "YELLO" yellow-and-black trade dress for its "V21" vodka. The Court found that the product's label restricted its sale to Madhya Pradesh. It also held that a Delhi address on the defendant's GST registration did not show that the defendant "carries on business" in Delhi, and that the plaint did not say whether the defendant held a Delhi excise licence.

The reasoning

Websites. The Court applied the "purposeful availment" test from the Division Bench decision in Banyan Tree. The plaintiff must show that the defendant specifically targeted people in Delhi, and that commercial transactions with those people were actually concluded through the website. Mere interactivity is not enough. The Court said contrary reasoning in some later decisions, including Tata Sons, cannot override Banyan Tree. It allowed the transaction requirement to be relaxed only in narrow cases, such as where the defendant has no presence in India.

Trap purchases. Arranging an investigator's purchase just to find a forum "amounts to concocting jurisdiction," the Court said. Such purchases count only in two cases: where jurisdiction could not otherwise be had anywhere, or where the goods are plainly being sold in Delhi anyway and the investigator only gathers proof.

"Carries on business." Section 134(2) of the Trade Marks Act and Section 62(2) of the Copyright Act use the same phrase as Section 20 CPC. The Court read them in line with Sanjay Dalia and Ultra Home. A company's principal place of business is ordinarily its registered office. A branch office counts only if the cause of action also arose there.

The Court also held that forum non conveniens applies to civil suits. Delhi should not become the default venue on the strength of a tiny part of the cause of action.

The outcome

All 17 plaints were returned under Order VII Rule 10 read with Section 151 CPC, to be filed before the competent court if the plaintiffs choose. The plaintiffs were given liberty to apply under Order VII Rule 10A. Pending applications were disposed of.

Why it matters

Delhi has long been the preferred forum for IP owners nationwide, largely because of its Commercial Division. This ruling raises the bar sharply. Practitioners should now plead concrete facts tying the defendant to Delhi: actual sales, a Delhi office where the cause of action arose, or a licence for regulated goods. Investigator invoices and screenshots of website access are unlikely to be enough on their own. Defendants have a stronger basis for early Order VII Rule 10 applications. A related question is pending before a larger bench of the High Court, so further guidance may follow.

Source / Citation: ABD Maestro Pvt. Ltd. v. Great Galleon Ventures Ltd. & connected matters, CS(COMM) 987/2026, Delhi High Court (Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, J.), judgment dated 03.11.2026. Judgment PDF