Intellectual property litigation in India is often won or lost on threshold questions: where can you sue (jurisdiction), and when must you sue (limitation)? For rights holders and defendants, these issues are not technicalities, rather they drive forum strategy, interim relief, cost, and timelines in intellectual property litigation. Delhi has become a leading venue after the creation of the Delhi High Court’s Intellectual Property Division (IPD) and the IPD Rules, 2022 for such litigations.
This article sets out a playbook on IP jurisdiction, limitation, and practical filing choices under India’s core intellectual property dispute laws.
Delhi as a Forum for IP Litigation: What Sits Where?
Delhi High Court IPD and commercial track
The Delhi High Court IPD Rules, 2022 apply to IP subject matters and proceedings before the IPD, and provide that such matters are heard by the IPD (typically by a Single Judge, with specified matters going to a Division Bench under the Commercial Courts framework).
Pecuniary routing in Delhi: District Commercial Courts vs Delhi High Court
In Delhi, commercial IP suits are routed based on valuation/“specified value” and pecuniary jurisdiction. A Delhi High Court decision records that Delhi Commercial Courts’ pecuniary jurisdiction ranges from INR 3 lakhs to INR 2 crores, and suits above INR 2 crores go to the Commercial Division of the Delhi High Court.
Separately, the “specified value” threshold for commercial disputes has been brought down (post-2018 amendment) to INR 3 lakhs.
Many IP suits now start in District (Commercial) Courts (for INR 3L–2Cr valuations) and move to the Delhi High Court Commercial Division/IPD when valuation is higher or where statutes/counterclaims require High Court transfer (notably patents).
Territorial Jurisdiction
CPC Section 20: the default rule
Absent special IP provisions, territorial jurisdiction generally tracks:
- where the defendant resides/carries on business; and/or
- where the cause of action arises wholly or in part (CPC Section 20 concept).
IP suits frequently plead Section 20(c)-type “part cause of action in Delhi,” especially for online infringement, marketplace listings, or Delhi sales.
“Additional forum” for plaintiffs in trademarks and copyright
India gives plaintiffs an additional forum under:
- Trade Marks Act, 1999 – Section 134(2): allows filing where the plaintiff “actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or personally works for gain.”
- Copyright Act, 1957 – Section 62(2): similar “additional forum” language.
However, these provisions are not a blank cheque for forum shopping.
Supreme Court constraint on forum shopping (Sanjay Dalia principle)
The Supreme Court’s reasoning in Indian Performing Rights Society v. Sanjay Dalia restricts misuse of the “additional forum”: where the plaintiff’s principal place of business (or ordinary residence) and the cause of action are at the same place, the plaintiff should sue there rather than dragging the defendant to a distant place merely because a subordinate office exists.
If you are filing in Delhi based only on a branch/subordinate office while the real cause of action and principal office are elsewhere, expect a serious jurisdiction challenge.
“Cause of Action in Delhi” in Offline and Online Infringement
Physical market / sales link to Delhi
For classic infringement/passing off, plaintiffs often establish Delhi jurisdiction by pleading:
- sales/offer for sale of infringing goods in Delhi,
- a purchase invoice/“trap purchase” in Delhi,
- distribution networks or retail presence in Delhi.
The mere fact of trademark registration or Registry location in Delhi does not automatically create territorial jurisdiction. A Delhi High Court report (Dec 2025) notes that territorial jurisdiction does not arise merely from the place of registration, relying on Dhodha House principles.
Website / e-commerce / platform listings
Delhi jurisprudence has played a pivotal role in shaping the law on internet-based jurisdiction in India. The Delhi High Court’s Banyan Tree line of decisions clarifies that the mere accessibility of a website in Delhi is not, by itself, sufficient to confer territorial jurisdiction. What is required is a demonstrable element of purposeful targeting or commercial interaction with users in Delhi, such that a part of the cause of action can be said to have arisen within the jurisdiction of the Delhi courts.
Accordingly, in online intellectual property disputes, pleadings must be supported by cogent evidence of Delhi-centric targeting. This may include proof of deliveries made in Delhi, transactions with Delhi-based customers, marketing or promotional activities directed at the Delhi market, invoices raised in Delhi, payment and shipping records reflecting Delhi as the destination, or platform and marketplace data evidencing sales or user engagement from Delhi. Reliance solely on the fact that a website is accessible in Delhi is unlikely to withstand jurisdictional scrutiny.
Subject-Matter Jurisdiction: Which Court Can Hear Which IP Right?
Trademarks and copyright (civil)
Both statutes contemplate institution before a “District Court having jurisdiction” (and in Delhi, this interacts with commercial courts/pecuniary routing).
Patents: District Court first, but revocation counterclaim shifts to High Court
Under Section 104 of the Patents Act, 1970, patent infringement suits cannot be brought before a court inferior to a District Court, and if the defendant files a counterclaim for revocation, the suit and counterclaim must be transferred to the High Court.
Patent infringement suits often land in the Delhi High Court once revocation is raised. So, early assessment of validity challenges materially changes the forum, costs, and timelines.
Limitation in IP Litigation: What Is the Clock, and When Does It Start?
The baseline: Limitation Act, 1963
IP statutes generally do not provide a single uniform limitation period for civil infringement suits. Limitation is therefore often assessed under the Limitation Act’s general framework (including the “right to sue accrues” concept and extensions in fraud/mistake cases).
In many IP civil actions (especially where no specific limitation article fits), parties argue the residuary 3-year framework linked to accrual of the right to sue (Article 113 logic). Courts also examine when the cause of action is continuing versus completed.
Continuing infringement: why limitation arguments often fail at the threshold
Trademark infringement and passing off are commonly treated as continuing causes of action—each fresh act of sale/offer/advertising can create a fresh cause. A Delhi High Court decision reiterates that infringement is a continuing cause of action and passing off is an act of deceit in tort, giving fresh causes when repeated.
Defendants frequently raise limitations to resist damages/accounting for earlier periods, but it is harder to defeat the suit entirely at the outset if ongoing infringement is pleaded credibly.
Delay, laches, and interim injunctions: equity still matters
Even where limitation is not fatal, delay can weaken interim relief (balance of convenience, irreparable harm). That said, the Supreme Court, in some cases has cited for the principle that in clear cases of infringement/passing off, mere delay should not ordinarily defeat injunction relief.
Delhi-Focused Practical Checklist
If you are instructing intellectual property lawyers in Delhi (or defending against a Delhi filing), you typically want the plaint/written statement to address upfront and with documents:
- Forum basis: CPC Section 20 cause-of-action facts + (if applicable) Section 134(2)/62(2) “additional forum” basis.
- Sanjay Dalia risk: principal place of business and where the real cause of action arose—avoid “subordinate office only” jurisdiction.
- Online targeting proof: Delhi deliveries, invoices, platform listings showing Delhi sales; Banyan Tree framing.
- Correct court in Delhi: valuation and routing (INR 3L–2Cr to District Commercial Courts; >2Cr to Delhi High Court Commercial Division/IPD).
- Limitation narrative: continuing infringement + discovery timeline; address delay for interim relief.
- Patents: anticipate revocation counterclaim and transfer mechanics under Section 104.
This is also where seasoned teams at the best IPR law firms in Delhi tend to differentiate themselves: clean jurisdictional pleading, evidence-backed Delhi nexus, and limitation-proof framing—before the court even reaches merits.
FAQs
1) What is “IP jurisdiction” in Delhi?
IP jurisdiction refers to whether Delhi courts can hear an IP dispute based on (i) territorial links (defendant location/cause of action in Delhi), (ii) special statutory plaintiff forums in trademarks/copyright, and (iii) subject-matter routing (e.g., patents and High Court transfer on revocation counterclaims).
2) Can I file a trademark or copyright infringement case in Delhi just because I have an office in Delhi?
Not always. While Sections 134(2) (trademarks) and 62(2) (copyright) provide an additional plaintiff forum, the Supreme Court’s Sanjay Dalia principle restrains forum shopping where the principal place of business and cause of action are elsewhere.
3) Does trademark registration in Delhi automatically give Delhi courts territorial jurisdiction?
No. Delhi jurisdiction generally requires a Delhi-based cause of action or proper statutory basis. A December 2025 Delhi High Court report notes that territorial jurisdiction does not arise merely from the place of registration, relying on Dhodha House.
4) For online infringement, is “website accessible in Delhi” enough?
Usually not. Delhi courts have assessed whether the defendant’s online presence is purposefully directed at Delhi or results in Delhi transactions/interaction, rather than mere passive accessibility.
5) What is the limitation period for IP infringement suits in India?
There is no single uniform limitation rule across all IP civil suits; courts apply the Limitation Act framework, often focusing on when the “right to sue accrues” and whether infringement is continuing.
6) Is trademark infringement treated as a continuing cause of action?
Frequently yes. Delhi decisions have reiterated that infringement can be a continuing cause, and passing off involves repeated deceit in tort, giving fresh causes of action with repeated acts.
7) How do I know whether to file in Delhi District Commercial Court or Delhi High Court?
In Delhi, commercial courts’ pecuniary jurisdiction is recorded as INR 3 lakhs to INR 2 crores, with suits above INR 2 crores placed before the Commercial Division of the Delhi High Court (and IP matters governed under the IPD framework).
8) In patent infringement suits, when does the matter move to the High Court?
If the defendant files a counterclaim seeking revocation of the patent, Section 104 provides for transfer of the suit and counterclaim to the High Court.
