Territorial jurisdiction for IP suits requires real business presence; mere website access or broadcasts do not suffice.

Special forum jurisdiction under Section 134(2) of the Trade Marks Act and Section 62(2) of the Copyright Act depends on the plaintiff actually residing, carrying on business, or personally working for gain within the forum. A plaintiff carries on business only where an essential part of its business is conducted there with sufficient control or business presence. Mere availability of goods, broadcast of programmes, or website accessibility in Delhi is not enough to establish jurisdiction, and online commerce does not alter the basic test. Absent a branch office, exclusive agent, or comparable substantial presence, the Delhi forum provisions are not attracted, and the plaint must be returned for want of territorial jurisdiction.

---

---

Issues: Whether the plaintiff could invoke territorial jurisdiction on the basis that it carried on business in Delhi through broadcasts, sale of merchandise, and accessibility of its website, so as to sustain the suit under the special forum provisions.

Analysis: The special jurisdiction under Section 134(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and Section 62(2) of the Copyright Act, 1957 depends on the plaintiff actually residing, carrying on business, or personally working for gain within the forum. The expression "carries on business" requires an essential part of the business to be conducted at the place claimed, along with some measure of control or business interest there. Mere availability of the plaintiff's goods in Delhi, broadcast of its programmes in Delhi, or accessibility of its website from Delhi does not by itself establish that the plaintiff carries on business in Delhi. The internet is only another medium of commerce, and the basic jurisdictional test does not change merely because the business model is online. The reasoning in the defendant-website cases does not assist the plaintiff, because those principles concern purposeful targeting by a defendant and injury within the forum, not a plaintiff's own claim to jurisdiction. In the absence of a branch office, exclusive agent, or other substantial business presence in Delhi, the special forum provisions are not attracted.

Conclusion: The Court held that it had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit and directed return of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Ratio Decidendi: For purposes of the special forum provisions, a plaintiff carries on business at a place only when an essential part of its business is conducted there with sufficient business control or presence; mere accessibility of goods, broadcasts, or a website in the forum is insufficient.

---