Vakil Help Desk News: the Delhi High Court has held that the mere accessibility of a website in a place cannot, on its own, give that place's courts territorial jurisdiction in an intellectual-property suit.
Vakil Help Desk News, Intellectual Property. The Delhi High Court has clarified a question that comes up often in online trademark and copyright disputes: just because a website can be opened in a particular city does not mean the courts of that city automatically have jurisdiction to hear an IP suit.
The principle, in plain words
A court has territorial jurisdiction only where the defendant resides or carries on business, or where the cause of action (the infringement) actually arose. A website is accessible almost everywhere by its nature — so if mere accessibility were enough, a plaintiff could sue anywhere. The Court held that something more is needed: the defendant must be shown to target that place, to make sales there, or to carry on business there.
- Accessibility is not enough: a site being viewable in a city does not mean the infringement happened there.
- Show a real connection: targeting of customers, actual transactions or business in the territory is what counts.
- Why it matters: it stops ‘forum shopping’ — picking a convenient court with no real link to the dispute.
What this means for you
Before filing an IP or trademark suit built on a defendant's online activity, be ready to show the defendant actually targets or does business in that court's territory — mere accessibility of a website will not anchor jurisdiction. We advise on trademark, copyright and IP litigation, including where to correctly file.