Jurisdiction Of Court In Trade Mark Cases

Article by Vijay Pal Dalmia, Advocate, Supreme Court of India and Delhi High Court, Partner & Head of Intellectual Property Laws Division, Vaish Associates Advocates, India

In Rukhmani Keshwani v. Raju Agarbatti Works & Anr., FAO (COMM) 99/2024, decided on 1 July 2026, a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court comprising Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla set aside a Commercial Court's order and revived a trademark and copyright infringement plaint that had been returned for want of territorial jurisdiction, restoring the suit for consideration on its merits. This judgment is an important one for clarifying the scope of Sections 134 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and 62 of the Copyright Act, 1957 as plaintiff-friendly jurisdictional provisions, and for relying on and echoing the ruling pronounced in Kohinoor Seed Fields India Pvt. Ltd. v. Veda Seed Sciences Pvt. Ltd., FAO (OS) (COMM) 66/2025.

Facts and Issue

Rukhmani Keshwani, a Delhi-based seller of agarbatti (incense sticks), alleged that Raju Agarbatti Works and another had infringed her trademarks and copied her artistic packaging, harming her goodwill by passing off their goods as hers. She filed suit in Delhi, claiming jurisdiction on the following grounds:

• her place of business was in Delhi;
• (ii) the defendants' infringing products were available on various e-commerce platforms that were accessible in Delhi;
• commercial deliveries of those products had taken place in Delhi.

The Commercial Court had returned the plaint under Order VII Rule 10 CPC, applying a narrow reading of 'cause of action' and concluding that, since manufacturing and selling were not carried on in Delhi, no cause of action could have arisen in Delhi. Thus, the relevant question before the Division Bench was: Can a Delhi Court have territorial jurisdiction where the plaintiff carries on business in Delhi and the defendants' infringing goods are accessible through e-commerce in Delhi, even if the defendants are not physically present in Delhi? Also, it is pertinent to take note that the Court here was deciding merely on the threshold jurisdictional question and not whether infringement had occurred.

Ruling and Analysis

In this case, the Division Bench allowed the appeal and restored the suit, giving four key findings-

(i) Sections 134 and 62 as Additional Forums: Section 134(2) of the Trade Marks Act and Section 62(2) of the Copyright Act grant the plaintiff choice of forum on the basis that the court within whose jurisdiction the plaintiff actually resides or carries on business. The Commercial Court erred in applying Section 20 CPC's to a suit which governed by the protections given by IP provisions. As per these provisions, it does not require the defendant to be located in, or the infringing act to occur in the plaintiff's jurisdiction, in fact they are precisely to relieve the plaintiff of that burden, making them plaintiff – friendly. The plaintiff's Delhi-based business is, by itself, sufficient to have jurisdiction of Delhi Courts.

(ii) Indian Performing Rights Society Ltd vs Sanjay Dalia & Anr: The Division Bench clarified that the Supreme Court's ruling in IPRS v. Sanjay Dalia, (2015) 10 SCC 161, warns to be careful in forum shopping in cases where a plaintiff deliberately sues at its principal office for his own benefit even though the cause of action and subordinate office are both elsewhere. The Division Bench correctly limited its reach: IPRS addresses the specific manipulation of deliberate forum shopping and nothing beyond it. It does not bar or limit the jurisdiction where genuine and substantive elements of the cause of action arise in Delhi.

(iii)Interactive E- Commerce Platforms Justifies Territorial Nexus: The Court correctly drew a distinction between websites (which solely display information) versus the interactive E-Commerce platforms (which gives consumers accessibility to place orders and receive deliveries). When a business intentionally and deliberately places its products for sale to Delhi customers through online platforms, it creates a sufficient and justified territorial connection with Delhi, even if sale is not completed. In the given case, the defendants' products were not only available for purchase online by consumers in Delhi, but there was sufficient evidence that the products had actually been delivered in Delhi. Thus, making the Delhi High Court's territorial jurisdiction even stronger.

(iv) M/S Kohinoor Seed Fields India Pvt Ltd vs M/S Veda Seed Sciences Pvt Ltd : The Bench in this case relied on its own ruling in Kohinoor Seed Fields India Pvt. Ltd. v. Veda Seed Sciences Pvt. Ltd. (December 2025), where jurisdiction in Delhi had been upheld in a trademark infringement suit on the basis of the plaintiff's Delhi office, Delhi trademark registrations, and the online availability of infringing goods on IndiaMart. The Court applied the same principle as in the case of the Kohinoor Seed Fields, but with an even stronger factual grounding because there was actual proof and evidence that the infringing goods had a been sold and delivered in Delhi through the E-Commerce platforms. Thus, these two Division Bench judgments establish that: (a) a plaintiff can sue in Delhi if they carry on business in Delhi under Section 134(2) of the Trade Marks Act or under Section 62(2) of the Copyright Act; (b) making infringing products available on online platforms, accessible to Delhi consumers can be a key element of the cause of action; and (c) where the infringing goods are actually delivered in Delhi, the case in favour of Delhi's territorial jurisdiction becomes far more stronger.

In an era of digital markets, where goods are sold and infringed across state boundaries using e-commerce platforms, a case like Rukhmani Keshwani becomes important as it clarifies that plaintiffs who carry on business in Delhi and whose intellectual property rights are infringed through online or e-commerce platforms targeting Delhi consumers will not be restricted from knocking on the doors of the Delhi courts. The judgment mindfully maintains the anti-forum-shopping protection while, at the same time, ensuring that defendants cannot exploit jurisdictional loopholes to escape accountability in digital markets. Given the growing role of e-commerce, which continues to blur traditional territorial boundaries, the holding in this case becomes even more significant.

BY

Vijay Pal Dalmia, Advocate

Supreme Court of India & Delhi High Court

Email id:  vpdalmia@vaishlaw.com

Mobile No.: +91 9810081079

Linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/in/vpdalmia/

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/vpdalmia

X (Twitter): @vpdalmia

AND

Kritika Gupta
3^rd Year, O P Jindal Global University

© 2026, Vaish Associates Advocates,
All rights reserved
Advocates, 1st & 11th Floors, Mohan Dev Building 13, Tolstoy Marg New Delhi-110001 (India).

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist professional advice should be sought about your specific circumstances. The views expressed in this article are solely of the authors of this article.