Shakthi Fashion & Anr. v. Burberry Limited

When a global luxury brand takes on a local retailer over trademark infringement, the first battle isn't fought over logos or counterfeits—it's fought over geography. The question of where a case can be heard often decides whether a plaintiff even gets a chance to argue the merits. In the dispute between Shakthi Fashion and Burberry Limited, the Delhi High Court was forced to confront this very question: can Delhi be the right forum when the alleged wrongdoing spans Bangalore, the internet, and a few local activities in the capital?

Shakthi Fashion & Anr. filed a trademark infringement suit against Burberry Limited. The dispute eventually reached the Delhi High Court through a revision petition, which challenged the dismissal of an application seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground of territorial jurisdiction. The core issue was whether the cause of action had truly arisen within the territorial limits of the Delhi courts. The plaintiffs pointed to past incidents in Bangalore, while also relying on ongoing activities in New Delhi, including online sales allegedly conducted through IndiaMart and instances of local solicitation within Delhi. Burberry, the defendant, contested the appropriateness of Delhi as the forum for the suit.

Shakthi Fashion argued that Delhi was the correct jurisdiction because the cause of action had arisen there. They pointed to ongoing commercial activities in New Delhi and the defendant's online sales through platforms like IndiaMart, suggesting that these activities gave the Delhi courts the authority to hear the matter. On the other side, Burberry challenged the territorial basis of the suit, contending that the alleged infringement and the relevant incidents were not sufficiently connected to Delhi to justify the court's jurisdiction. The legal friction centered on a fundamental question: do online sales and a few local activities in Delhi constitute enough to establish that the cause of action arose within the court's territorial limits?

The Delhi High Court dismissed the revision petition, ruling in favor of the defendant on the jurisdictional question. The court held that territorial jurisdiction in such matters is a mixed question of fact and law—one that cannot be resolved on the basis of bare pleadings alone. The court reasoned that the determination required evidence to be led at trial, meaning the plaintiffs would need to prove through actual evidence that the cause of action had indeed arisen within Delhi. Mere assertions about online sales or local solicitation were not enough to conclusively establish jurisdiction at the preliminary stage. The outcome tilted in Burberry's favor, as the court declined to interfere with the lower court's dismissal of the rejection application.

For founders and IP professionals, this case delivers a clear and practical lesson: territorial jurisdiction is not a technicality—it is a threshold that must be carefully built. When filing an IP infringement suit, simply stating that the defendant has an online presence or some local activity in a particular city is not enough. Plaintiffs must plead specific, material facts that demonstrate exactly how the cause of action arose within the chosen court's territorial limits. If the jurisdictional facts are contested—as they often are in cases involving online sales or multi-city operations—the issue must be framed as a triable question and supported with evidence. Skipping this groundwork risks having your case dismissed before the merits are ever heard.