Delhi High Court Refers Territorial Jurisdiction Question In HUL's Disparagement Suit Against Kwick Living To Larger Bench

Justice A. J. Bhambhani made the reference while hearing Hindustan Unilever Limited's suit against Kwick Living (I) Private Limited over an advertisement campaign titled "War on What's Hidden" which allegedly disparaged HUL's products.

HUL had sought a permanent injunction restraining Kwick Living from broadcasting or publishing the campaign, which the plaintiff claimed disparaged its products Vim and Surf Excel through unsubstantiated and misleading claims.

The campaign was allegedly run on billboards, social media platforms, and the defendant's website.

Summons in the suit were issued on August 19, 2026.

At that stage itself, senior counsel Chander M. Lall, appearing for Kwick Living, raised a preliminary objection on territorial jurisdiction.

The court granted the defendant a day's time to file its reply to the interim injunction application. After hearing both sides on the limited question of jurisdiction, the court reserved judgment on August 24, 2026.

Lall argued that the court lacked territorial jurisdiction, pointing out that both HUL and Kwick Living have their registered offices in Mumbai, and that the plaint itself averred an instance of the impugned hoarding only in Mumbai.

He relied on the Supreme Court's ruling in Indian Performing Rights Society Ltd. vs. Sanjay Dalia, which held that where a cause of action arises at the place of the plaintiff's principal office, the suit must be filed there and "nowhere else."

Lall also cited the Division Bench ruling in Banyan Tree Holding vs. A. Murali Krishna Reddy, arguing that mere accessibility of a website within a court's jurisdiction cannot confer jurisdiction absent proof that the defendant "purposefully availed" of that jurisdiction.

Senior counsel Amit Sibal, for HUL, argued that the company also maintains a corporate office in Delhi, and that the impugned campaign was accessible in Delhi through YouTube, Instagram, and the defendant's website, which allowed for the sale of Kwick Living's products in the city.

Sibal further placed reliance on Kohinoor Seed Fields India (P) Ltd. vs. Veda Seed Sciences (P) Ltd., where the Division Bench observed that the existence of an interactive website over which commercial transactions could be concluded was "equivalent to WWE having a brick and mortar store in Delhi."

The court noted a direct conflict between two lines of authority.

It observed that Banyan Tree "adopts a stringent test for internet-based jurisdiction," holding that mere accessibility of a website "does not suffice" and that the plaintiff must show "purposeful availment and specific targeting" of the forum.

This, the court noted, stood in tension with the broader approach in Kohinoor Seed Fields, which "treats the capability to conclude a transaction as sufficient to establish 'carrying on business' in every accessible marketplace."

The court also flagged that the Division Bench in Kohinoor Seed Fields had expressed reservations about the correctness of Ultra Home Construction Pvt. Ltd. vs. Purushottam Kumar Chaubey, observing that requiring a plaintiff to sue at its subordinate office merely because the cause of action arose there would amount to "re-writing Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act."

Cautioning against an overly expansive reading of jurisdiction in the internet era, the court remarked that the principles of territorial jurisdiction "cannot be so diluted or be made so vague that a corporation could sue in just about any location within the country," warning that such an approach "would throw the very concept of territorial jurisdiction of courts to the winds."

Finding the conflict incapable of resolution at the single-judge level, Justice Bhambhani referred three questions to a larger bench:

• Whether IP suits are governed solely by Section 20 CPC, Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act, Section 62 of the Copyright Act, or an interplay of all three provisions.
• Whether a corporate plaintiff must sue only where its principal or registered office is situated when part of the cause of action has also arisen there.
• What jurisdictional rule should govern online transactions in IP disputes, given the conflicting approaches in Banyan Tree, World Wrestling Entertainment, and Kohinoor Seed Fields.

The court directed the Registry to place the judgment before the Chief Justice for constituting a bench of appropriate strength, with compliance to be ensured within one week.

For HUL: Senior Advocates Amit Sibal and Swathi Sukumar with Advocate Saikrishna Rajagopal, Sidharth Chopra, Nitin Sharma, Sneha Jain, Vivek Ayyagari, Abhinav Bhalla, Saksham Dhingra and Smriti Nair

For Beco: Senior Advocate Chander M. Lall with Advocates Shwetasree Majumder, Prithvi Singh, Jahnvi Chadha, Rohan Krishna Seth, Devyani Nath, Krtin Bhasin, Ritwik Marwaha, Vanshika Singh and Annanya Mehan