Bombay or Delhi, Where Should You File Your IP Suit?
For an intellectual property dispute in India, the choice between Bombay and Delhi is not simply a matter of which High Court is perceived to be more convenient or experienced in IP litigation. Territorial jurisdiction has to be established under the applicable statute and the Code of Civil Procedure.
The question has become particularly important because Delhi has a dedicated Intellectual Property Division, while Bombay does not presently have a notified IP Division. Delhi High Court’s IP Division operates under its Intellectual Property Rights Division Rules, 2022.
But the existence of an IP Division does not by itself give Delhi jurisdiction over every IP dispute.
For trademark infringement and passing-off actions, Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 permits a suit before a competent District Court, including a court within whose jurisdiction the plaintiff actually and voluntarily resides, carries on business or personally works for gain.
The Copyright Act contains a similar additional forum under Section 62.
At the same time, Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure generally permits proceedings where the defendant resides or carries on business or where the cause of action wholly or partly arises.
The Supreme Court’s decision in Indian Performing Rights Society Ltd. v. Sanjay Dalia is crucial when choosing between competing forums.
The Court held that the additional jurisdiction available to IP plaintiffs cannot be used to drag a defendant to a distant or otherwise unconnected forum merely because the plaintiff maintains a subordinate office there.
Where the plaintiff’s principal place of business and the cause of action are located in the same place, the suit ordinarily has to be instituted there rather than at a distant branch location.
That principle continues to have practical significance for a Bombay-versus-Delhi decision.
For example, if a company’s principal business is in Mumbai and the alleged infringement also occurred in Mumbai, merely maintaining a Delhi office may not be sufficient to justify filing the suit in Delhi.
A recent Delhi High Court decision in August 2026 reaffirmed this limitation. The Court held that where the plaintiff’s principal place of business and the cause of action were both in Mumbai, Section 62 of the Copyright Act and Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act could not be invoked to confer territorial jurisdiction on Delhi merely because the plaintiff had a presence there.
This means that the first question should not be, “Is Delhi better than Bombay for IP litigation?”
The correct question is, “Which court legally has territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction over this particular dispute?”
Once jurisdiction exists in both places, the practical differences between the two forums become relevant.
Delhi can be particularly attractive for matters that properly fall within the jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court’s IP Division. The specialised IPD framework provides a dedicated procedural structure for intellectual property disputes and has made Delhi an important centre for sophisticated IP litigation.
Bombay remains an important IP litigation forum, particularly where the defendant, plaintiff’s principal business, commercial transactions or infringement have a substantial connection with Mumbai or Maharashtra.
The absence of a notified IP Division in Bombay does not mean that the Bombay High Court cannot hear IP disputes. The relevant jurisdictional, pecuniary and procedural requirements still determine where the action can properly be brought.
Another important point is that the pleadings themselves matter. A plaintiff cannot simply assert jurisdiction after filing the suit. Recent Bombay High Court proceedings have emphasised that the plaint must contain the necessary factual averments establishing territorial jurisdiction; oral submissions or isolated documents may not cure a jurisdictional deficiency in the pleadings.
Therefore, if you are deciding between Bombay and Delhi, examine the plaintiff’s principal place of business, the defendant’s location, where the infringing activity occurred, where the cause of action arose, the nature of the IP right involved, and whether the relevant statutory provision creates an additional forum.
The safest approach is to establish jurisdiction first and then consider forum strategy.
In short, Delhi may offer the procedural advantages of a dedicated IP Division, but that does not allow a plaintiff to bypass the territorial-jurisdiction rules. Bombay may be the appropriate forum where the commercial and factual connection to Mumbai is stronger.
The forum should ultimately follow the legally available jurisdiction—not merely the perceived advantages of one High Court over another.
